VDP-12 VitaDAO Governance Framework Amendment #1

VitaDAO Governance Framework Amendment #1

We suggest improving parts of VDP-1 to improve our governance processes. Next to a more flexible phase 1, we propose a new template and more transparency during phase 2, as well as a new 7-day vote in batches during phase 3. Authors of successful proposals should follow up with a retrospective.

Motivation

VDP-1 VitaDAO Governance Framework was a tremendous milestone as it gave birth to the DAO-part of VitaDAO and enabled us all to discuss, decide and move forward in a systematic and decentralised, yet also straightforward and efficient way. Since the framework was adopted two months ago, it was put to the test by many community members which resulted in six on-chain votes and many more soft governance decisions.

Two months later, we have a sense of where we can do better. Our diverse community of longevity researchers and blockchain enthusiasts with >100 accounts on our Discourse and >500 wallets holding VITA expressed various concerns where the governance process was unintuitive, complicated or inflexible. This proposal is to amend VDP-1 with several specific points while keeping the tried and trusted parts in place.

Specification

a) Phase 1: More Flexibility

Corresponding section in VDP-1

The governance working group suggests allowing more options for phase 1 proposals to move to phase 2.

Moving forward, phase 1 can be completed

  • as a thread in the ‘Ideas’ category on Discourse, or
  • as a message in a channel on Discord, or
  • as a message in a group chat on Discord

whereas a phase 1 proposal is considered passed once it has received support from five individuals

  • through comments/responses or
  • through likes/emoji reactions.

b) Phase 2: Aligning the Specifications with On-Chain Proposals

Corresponding section in VDP-1

The governance working group suggests changing the template for phase 2 proposals to match the template of phase 3.

Moving forward, phase 2 proposals should be structured as follows:

  • Title → 30-60 characters
  • Summary → 200-400 characters in one paragraph
  • Details → any length, any formatting, can include images and hyperlinks, must include sections on motivation, specification and implementation
  • Single-choice poll with the options “Agree”, “Agree with revisions (please comment)”, and “Disagree”, as described in VDP-1

c) Phase 2: Fostering Informed Decisions

Corresponding section in VDP-1

The governance working group suggests introducing measures that make it easier for community members to make an informed decision without requiring an unreasonable amount of their time.

This should include an impact assessment conducted by a working group member who is not the proposal author or part of their team. The impact assessment should flag notable details, including high budgets, fundamental changes of rules and other extraordinary measures.

Moreover, we suggest a mandatory live event, such as an Ask-Me-Anything (AMA) on a conference call, for all proposals before their details are finalised for phase 3. The respective proposal author is responsible for organising this event.

d) Phase 3: Shortening the Duration

Corresponding section in VDP-1

The governance working group suggests reducing the voting duration of phase 3 votes from 14 days to 7 days, as well as the voting delay period from 48h to 12h.

e) Phase 3: Batches

Corresponding section in VDP-1

The governance working group suggests uploading phase 3 proposals in batches.

This should be seen as the default way to operate, given that voting on several proposals at the same time provides a much better experience to the user than voting once every other week.

It should also merely be seen as a recommendation and time-sensitive proposals may still be uploaded on chain immediately once they qualify for phase 3. If that should be the case, we suggest that proposal authors include a prominent remark in their phase 2 proposal.

f) Post-Phase 3: Retrospectives

No corresponding section in VDP-1

The governance working group suggests introducing a social contract for proposal authors to report back whether and how their successful proposal was implemented in the form of a retrospective.

The author should revisit the motivation described in the phase 3 proposal and reflect on whether and how the situation has improved. In particular, such a report should provide an analysis of how the provided funds have been used, as well as which parts of the proposal have been implemented and which have not been.

Lastly, the retrospective should include a short summary with the next steps, both as part of ongoing work as part of this proposal as well as recommended action items that the author considers to be outside the scope of this proposal.

Retrospectives should be published as a thread on Discourse in the corresponding working group section no later than at the end of the next quarter following the end of the on-chain vote.

Implementation

Pending reviews and feedback, this proposal will be put up for an on-chain vote in full or partially and implemented accordingly soon after the vote has been concluded by the governance working group in collaboration with the technical working group.

  • Agree
  • Agree with revisions (please comment)
  • Disagree

0 voters

5 Likes

This proposal is based on earlier conversations in the governance working group with @eladv, @JamesID, @papa_raw, @audieleon, @timrpeterson, @Stefano, @TheoWal, @tylergolato, @PaulHaas and more. Everybody, please review whether these are the right amendments to make at this time and whether they are formulated in the right way.

I have intentionally left out issues around gas-less voting and potentially migrating to another DAO framework. This should be a separate conversation, I believe, that is likely to take more time to mature than all issues listed above as part of this proposal.

6 Likes

The changes for Phase 1 & 2 are great as it eases proposal creation and helps to inform the community.

Even though the intentions are pure and good willed I’m not a fan of shortening the voting period - the price for democratic decision making is that it is slow, but allows everyone to vote. I could see future scenarios where VDP are pushed through in a fast manner by holders with many tokens before many token holders even notice that the VDP was up - and I personally firmly believe that we should give people who only check the discord/twitter every few weeks enough time to decide on their vote.

If we want faster speed with e.g funding decisions etc. the point to tackle would be the duration before it goes on-chain by optimizing decision making and process optimization within the working groups - but not at the on-chain voting level.

Here’s a suggestion:
Can we have the voting duration flexible in a way that it requires a minimum of 7 days, but if the proposer wants to have a longer voting period of say 14 or even 30 days can decide on doing so when putting the proposal on chain? Same for the delayed period.

This would also allow more flexibility if we realize down the road that a 7 day voting period is not sufficient to met the quorum, or in case some proposals might be more complex and adequate time should be given to the community to educate themselves.

4 Likes

Typical voting periods for DAOs are much shorter than ours is right now:

  • OlypmusDAO: 4 Days
  • ENS DAO: 7 Days
  • Gitcoin: 7 Days
  • The Graph: 7 Days
  • SushiSwap: 5 Days
  • AAVE: 3 Days

A move to 7 days, for me, represents a move from ultra-slow and conservative to just slow. I’d personally prefer the vote to happen within 5 days, but will be thrilled if the proposal passes as it stands.

As for @Max_Unfried’s concern, our operations this far have been to emphasize the governance in Phase 1 and Phase 2, only moving to phase 3 when necessary, and after much discussion. While it’s possible for anyone to submit a proposal, because it’s not yet easy to do, in effect the DAO submits all the proposals. (Particularly since they cost a good deal of gas.) However, we only do so after a good bit of debate on discourse/discord.

The voting period can technically be adjusted per proposal, but it significantly ups the price and administrative costs of submitting and managing a proposal, since it would require the DAO executing two Multisig transactions on the Raphael contract for each proposal that deviates from the 7 day norm. Only the contract owner can make this change. This is not sustainable. Better to have a strong norm.

Lastly, I think we need to get this vote on chain ASAP. We need to get several things done before the holiday deadzone, and the voting period as it stands would allow for few governance votes between now and the end of the year. I propose we get this on chain tomorrow. Can we get the votes to do so?

Edit - removed a comment about vote delay - was addessed in proposal.

6 Likes

agree… 7 days sounds good!

7 Likes