VDP-93 [Governance]: Proposal to Revise Governance Workflow


VitaDAO has reached a point in its growth where the size of the organisation and the volume of governance activity has made it impractical for all but the mostly full-time contributors to keep up with the volume of governance as well as the nuances of the proposals.

To overcome this, and align the community for what is expected to be considerable growth for the remainder of the year, this proposal seeks to strengthen the governance development and review process leading up to community voting to ensure relevant concerns are documented and addressed.

This proposal has changes, or otherwise impacts VDP-1, VDP-59, and VDP-60.


Todd White, Gavin Singh


As VitaDAO has grown, the complexity of managing governance activities has increased substantively. Most governance proposals are worded through the eyes of the authors to achieve specific intent and, up to this point in time, VitaDAO’s active contributors have been able to balance all the differing perspectives through informal conversations.

Meanwhile, ecosystem risks have increased both in the wider macro-economic and regulatory environment which require that proposals be considered through differing, and often specialised, lenses.

While the current process of allowing all members of the community to propose governance must be maintained, the process to reach a Phase 3 (Snapshot) vote must involve some checks and balances to ensure that awareness of potential risks are communicated to the community, and that decisions by the community are made with the full scope of issues in mind.

Firstly, we propose to standardise the VDP designations of specific proposals into series such that subsequent changes to a proposal be (re-)designated as an amendment of the original.

Secondly, we propose to improve and increase the due diligence of Phase 2 governance to include a higher level of transparency and risk assessment to be applied to all proposals through the application of a gated workflow to ensure risk assessments are available to token holders prior to Snapshot voting.

Thirdly, we propose to clarify the gating of Phase 2 proposals to Phase 3 based on resolution of issues brought up during Phase 2.


Standardised VDP Nomenclature and Versioning

While active proposals follow the VDP-XX nomenclature, we propose to supplement the DAO Constitution Category with specific categories of versioned proposals to simplify the ability of the community to find the latest and most current governance on a specific topic. Namely:

000 Series - VitaDAO Multi-sig and Tokenomics

100 Series - Governance Framework and Processes

200 Series - Operational Policies

300 Series - Funding Portfolio

400 Series - Non-Profit Initiatives

500 Series - Budgeting and Finance Reporting.

As each active VDP proposal is passed, the proposal will be added to the appropriate Category above, and if the VDP is a material change to a previous VDP, the previous VDP will be annotated as “DEPRECATED - VDP-xx : Valid Until [DATE]]”. If the changes to a previous VDP are considered minor or housekeeping in nature, the previous VDP may be amended in-line with References to the VDP that was passed requesting its modification.

Revised Phase 2 Proposal Workflow

1. Proposal Formation

  1. We propose that as part of the Phase 1 (Ideation) phase, the proponent(s) of a new proposal should submit their draft proposal via the governance channel on Discord for intake.

2. Clarity Review

  1. The Governance Squad will then invite the proponent(s) to give a brief presentation on the proposal to ensure the Governance Squad understands the intent of the proposal and informal feedback / coaching on the proposal content may be provided.
  2. This is not an opportunity to gate the proposal, except for situations where a proposal is a clear violation of the VitaDAO Code of Conduct. The Governance Squad is intended to provide support to the proponent(s) to ensure their proposal is properly structured and their intent is clear - independent of the opinions of the Governance Squad members on the substance of the proposal.

3. Feedback and Resolution of Comments

  1. Once the Governance Squad presentation is done and members provide their initial feedback, and the proponent(s) have made any changes as a result of that feedback, the proponent(s) can add the proposal to Discourse for initial community review.
  2. During this process the proposal may require additional changes to reflect community feedback and may iterate several times.
  3. When a proposal receives comments, the proponent(s) is expected to respond to the comments by either making the suggested changes, providing further information, or stating the reason for not wishing to accept the suggestions.
  4. When a comment or suggestion has been resolved, the commenter should indicate resolution using the checkbox in the response from the proponent. If the commenter has already voted on the Phase 2 poll, and their concerns overall have been resolved, they are encouraged to re-vote to reflect the resolution of their comment(s).
  5. For clarity, if a proposal does not have a majority between Agree + Agree with Revisions (that have been resolved), the proposal may not proceed to the next stage.

4. Validation Stage

Each proposal will then be circulated as follows:

  1. Budget Review: If the proposal requests funding, the Coordination Working Group must confirm that a budget exists for the project taking into account other commitments and provide any guidance or impact on the operations of the squad/working group budget whose budget is being impacted.

Gate: Analysis to be provided and a budget statement appended to Phase 2 draft.

  1. Resource Review: Where a proposal requires people to execute specific tasks, the proponent(s) must either provide all the resources to execute, or where resources from elsewhere within the DAO are requested, those resources need to confirm their availability and any impact on other DAO initiatives.

Gate: Availability and Impact Sign-off from other resources, appended to Phase 2 draft.

  1. Legal Review: All proposals shall be reviewed by a member of the legal squad to confirm the wording of proposals are consistent with the regulatory and legal environments the proposal may be impacted by.

Due to a high degree of cross pollination within the ecosystem legal review shall be provided only by members of the legal squad where it is confirmed that they have no pecuniary interest in the subject matter of the proposal and are operating at arms-length to the subject matter.

In cases where this cannot be achieved within the active members of the legal squad, this proposal authorises the Coordination Steward to engage with arms-length outside legal counsel to perform the review as needed.

Gate: Legal to provide a concurrence statement that indicates agreement with the proposal as worded, or if changes are required, the proponent must make the necessary changes to achieve legal compliance. The concurrence statement from the Legal Squad / external counsel shall be appended only upon approval with the proposal.

5) Transition to Phase 3 Stage (Snapshot)

The proposal shall be published to Snapshot and shall include the final approved text from Discourse, as well as the Budget Statement and Legal Statement. The Governance Squad may only use the existing summary from the Discourse proposal and any change which may need to occur for presentation purposes on Snapshot shall be pre-approved by legal. All links to external documents shall point to copies on IPFS.


If this proposal passes, the above processes will occur with immediate effect. All governance currently in process will require submission to 4) Validation stage prior to publishing to Snapshot.

Success Metrics

  • Reduced Operational Risks.

  • Improved Governance Workflow.

  • Agree
  • Revisions Requested (Detail in Comments)
  • Disagree

0 voters


As far as I know, the only requirement to vote on a phase 2 proposal is having created a Discourse account and a “reading time” of > 10 minutes. This means that it’s really easy for (bad) actors to create multiple accounts and block proposals from going to phase 3. From my observations, this has happened a few times in the past already (either blocking a proposal or artificially forcing it to go to phase 3).

In my opinion, phase 2 is fundamentally broken. As long as we haven’t fixed that one, I don’t know how much sense it makes to refine the rules around it. It doesn’t change the fact that it’s broken.

It’s a big problem, but it’s also kind of a low-hanging fruit to fix, since we know some ways to prevent anonymous voting. Shouldn’t we address this first? Or directly include it in this VDP?


I would say directly address in this VDP as needed - what is your suggested approach to enforce? @alexdobrin may have some other insights.

1 Like

Can we work on this together? I had a few thoughts that I shared with Todd too, on moving Phase 2 to snapshot similar to Uniswap Governance. With Gitcoin Passport, token quota requirements and quorum solutions


Let’s do it! I was also thinking about Gitcoin Passport


I think we should reserve the governance forum/Phase 2 voting exclusively for contributors as a way to build consensus and get e temperature check for token holder voting.


Regarding the Clarity Review & Validation Stage, we should check if the squad members have any conflicts of interest with the proposals that are being reviewed


( 1. Proposal Formation)Phase 1: Is it intended for this to be gated as well? If not, it there a public channel for this to be discussed? The current governance channel is gated

Overall it seems like a lot of the process happens in the background in the workflow suggested in this proposal. I appreciate the due diligence proposed here and I am happy to see the same. What I’d request to the team is that this process be conducted on forum, where these things are more public and easily retrievable.

I’d suggest,

Phase 1: Request for comments on Discourse, live for ‘x’ days

Phase 2:

  • Step 1: Incorporate public comments as well as feedback from Budget, resource and legal
  • Step 2: Formal proposal with discourse poll (Ideally gated with gitcoin passport) live for ‘x’ days

Phase 3: Snapshot


Hi there! Can you please elaborate on the ‘Governance Squad’? As proposals increase this squad will have to take on more work, and as you have mentioned they are already stretched. What will be the criteria to join the Governance Squad? Will all members have to comment on each proposal or will it be a quota? How will the feedback be structured? i.e. a numerical score or written review? Will it be anonymous? I think these are important considerations in ensuring that the Squad remain impartial in their assessments.

1 Like

Thanks Todd. I proposed a long time ago to use suffixes that corresponded to the working groups. E.g., VDP-gov-XX, VDP-deal-XX, VDP-legal-XX, VDP-tok-XX, VDP-tech-XX. People won’t remember the numbering scheme.


I agree that Phase 2 can have suspicious voting and i love the idea of something like gitcoin passport, but is it too high friction? Let’s be careful to not take this simple, low friction temperature check which has been working fairly well and bloat it with process.

@Taliskermalt we should define what Phase I is. If Phase I should mean different things depending on the WG let’s say that. Currently Phase I in the longevity WG means upvoting on Discord by longevity WG members. I don’t think “ideation” is specific enough.


Agree with your concerns Tim. However, I don’t think it’s high friction and best to have a degree of sybil resistance over the current absence of it on Discourse. Phase 2 is an important step especially if we start automating proposals to Phase 3 once it is passed.


Fully agree here. Especially contributors / community members that have not engaged hugely with any of the proposals will struggle to locate and remember proposal categories.


Further, I would suggest to to add to the current workflows of the “Phase 2 Proposal Workflow”. This way community members that are unfamiliar/ new to the governance of the DAO can understand the proposed changes better.

E.g: 1. Proposal formation
Current process: XYZ
Revised process: XYZ


Fully agree, dont think the friction of a Gitcoin passport is that massive.


Definitely! I’ve been making that a priority where the version history of our governance process and amendments can be sifted through in our VitaDAO Governance Constitution.

1 Like
  1. Legal Review: All proposals shall be reviewed by a member of the legal squad to confirm the wording of proposals are consistent with the regulatory and legal environments the proposal may be impacted by.

This step would create unintended bloat, untimely delays, and unnecessary spend on legal depleting the DAO treasury.

Legal review should be integrated into the Governance Squad presentation step at the beginning, here:

  1. The Governance Squad will then invite the proponent(s) to give a brief presentation on the proposal to ensure the Governance Squad understands the intent of the proposal and informal feedback / coaching on the proposal content may be provided.
  2. This is not an opportunity to gate the proposal, except for situations where a proposal is a clear violation of the VitaDAO Code of Conduct.

At the time of the proposal is submitted, Governance Squad should decide whether there is a potential Code of Conduct violation requiring legal review.

If there is a potential violation, then legal review.

The idea that “all proposals should be reviewed by a member of the legal squad…[or a third party lawyer]” is well-intentioned and paves a road to hell—a hell populated by lawyers.

In other words, requiring legal review of all proposals would create a dystopian nightmare. The DAO would become more censorship-prone, not more censorship-resistant. It would not be in the spirit of Ethereum.

For these reasons, I voted “revisions requested” and request the revision specified herein: eliminate step 4.3 as a separate step and integrate it into step 2.1/2.2.


I agree. Integrating legal into step 2.1/2.2 is going to be much more efficient. Concern over particular word choice in the proposals is well founded and well taken, but I think we can cover this with a simple guide sheet of principles and no-nos (I think Jesse has already made something like this).

Wherever possible, we should keep us lawyers on a tight leash lol.

1 Like

I’d like to only people who actually hold $VITA to take part of governance. It is a governance token after all. Just being on discord/discourse should not suffice.