Generally in alignment with this proposal, although would like to draft a follow-up improvement on this to balance powers best towards governance/token holders vs centralizing it to a shrinking amount of stewards and rather coming up with a more empowering and less hierarchical enablement, enabling a structure similarly to the one proposed here: [Discussion] Safe DAO Resource Allocation Model (OBRA) - Governance - Safe Community Forum or that Vitalik mentioned in DAOs are not corporations: where decentralization in autonomous organizations matters
- basically getting rid of stewards → and rather having initiative or pod leads
- rather having leads for specific initiatives that are part of the roadmap (some are continuous, some are over after the initiative i finished or delivered), that drive specific strategies → a large part of this would be longevity dealflow leads, shepherds as is already the case, or having a website lead or socials lead…
and dont think it makes sense for example that longevity + awareness dictates gov, tokenomics, fundraising etc., but rather a squad/lead forms around specific initiatives like “treasury management lead”, or “fundraising lead”, that would share specific governance proposals and drive those initiatives forward within a strategy, towards a measurable metric.
so instead of “calling upon” legal, gov, tech & tokenomics and many other streams by longevity or community, they’d be initiated via a gov proposals that drive a specific initiative within a strategy towards a goal.
instead of just stewards executing, it would be every empowered lead and squad enabled to execute within their budget, and initiative.
i’d make vitacore member appointed by gov and not stewards, same for stewards themselves.
—
best visualized in these graphics
Vitalik - DAOs are not corporations: where decentralization in autonomous organizations matters
—
