DAOstar One (Internal)
DAOstar One (Internal)
/
🛰️
Metagovernance #2
🛰️

Metagovernance #2

Last Edited Time
Apr 27, 2022
Created time
Mar 23, 2022
Participants
Created By
Type
Metagovernance Team
Created
Mar 23, 2022
Zoom Recording
Property
Property 1
Attendees: Bill, Ivan, Josh, Prima, Kei
 
Agenda:
  1. What should the DAOstar One DAO look like?
  1. Accepting standards
  1. What should be the criteria for bringing new organizations into.
 
Two use-cases:
  1. Accepting standards (vote)
  1. Getting credible commitments to standards (TBD)
    1. Ivan: if you’re an organization that is potentially implementing the standard, it’s very easy to come up an optimal theoretical design that is not.
  1. Bringing on new organizations (vote)
    1. Bill: rather than money, I would focus on adoption. Even Aragon did an ICO years ago, but they don’t have traditional investment.
      1. Ivan: +1 right now there’s a lot of money flying around for DAO tooling. The ability to fundraise vs. being able to ship useful open-source code, the second one should be the bar for inclusion.
    2. Prima: the more people that are part of the discussion, the better. We are just part of the eco for different reasons. It’s more like, what kind of deliberation we want to have. Some type of voting might build to some metrics, but not necessarily all of them.
    3. Bill: yeah, there are independent thinkers that we may want to bring on.
    4. Prima: do we want them to vote or do we want them to participate
      1. Bill: +1 to include new organizations in the discussions but restrict voting to people who are “live” with at least 1 or 2 DAOs using them, or to people who have participated meaningfully in at least some DAO
      2. Ivan: +1 when it comes to discussions + deliberations having a wider set of stakeholders makes sense. I think someone vouching
    5. Kei: in neither of the use-cases are prone to attack, so it should be fine. Would separate more informal processes from formal votes. Formal votes would only deal with distributing the funding we’re given. Vouching in Groundwerk seems to work pretty well.
      1. Voting power? 1-org-1-vote.
        1. Ivan: aragon has quite a few people right now
    6. Prima: I like the idea of associating a vote to a commitment. You can deliberate, but your vote should not be involved in something that has something with identity if you dont’ work on identity.
    7. Bill: the standard should be pretty low and informal for entry, but when it comes to more formal voting, that does raise an interesting question of how much we should split it out, so people who aren’t part of something don’t vote on it. Which is why I think someone who hasn’t launched anything yet, should they be voting?
      1. Maybe identity doesn’t affect moloch, should they be voting on the identity standard?
    8. Prima: If you’re going to adopt a standard, you want to make sure that the standard you’re committing is sound. It should not be us who gets to vote.
    9. Prima: the people who are part of the governance are committed to respecting the standard, and there’s a benefit to staying in. If you engage in voting on a particular feature, there is an understanding (could be very loose), the reason you vote on it is you are staking and committing to respect that standard. Okay if you don’t do it, there’s no accountability mechanism, but it’s a rule of thumb.
    10. Bill: norms are a good place to start rather than on-chain rules.
    11. Kei: we should use the current system through a couple of more votes, and then see if we want to implement it off-chain.
    12. Bill: on budget, the more topline the better, good to have a community vote on the high-level stuff, and the people with strong opinions can have a budget subDAO.
Examples:
     
    From last meeting: Summary: We decided to set up a simple Snapshot or other voting system to track sentiment in DAOstar. Reasoning: DAOstar represents a wide cross-section of the current DAO ecosystem, and the outcomes of these non-binding votes could be useful for representing the direction & will of the community. Further, while a DAOstar DAO could do lots of things, we wanted to start with something lightweight that didn't distract from the key work of building the standard. We also agreed to plan a physical roundtable meeting, possibly attached to Gitcoin's Schelling Point or some other event, at ETH Denver.
     
    DAOstar One (Internal)
    DAOstar One (Internal)
    /
    🛰️
    Metagovernance #2
    🛰️

    Metagovernance #2

    Last Edited Time
    Apr 27, 2022
    Created time
    Mar 23, 2022
    Participants
    Created By
    Type
    Metagovernance Team
    Created
    Mar 23, 2022
    Zoom Recording
    Property
    Property 1
    Attendees: Bill, Ivan, Josh, Prima, Kei
     
    Agenda:
    1. What should the DAOstar One DAO look like?
    1. Accepting standards
    1. What should be the criteria for bringing new organizations into.
     
    Two use-cases:
    1. Accepting standards (vote)
    1. Getting credible commitments to standards (TBD)
      1. Ivan: if you’re an organization that is potentially implementing the standard, it’s very easy to come up an optimal theoretical design that is not.
    1. Bringing on new organizations (vote)
      1. Bill: rather than money, I would focus on adoption. Even Aragon did an ICO years ago, but they don’t have traditional investment.
        1. Ivan: +1 right now there’s a lot of money flying around for DAO tooling. The ability to fundraise vs. being able to ship useful open-source code, the second one should be the bar for inclusion.
      2. Prima: the more people that are part of the discussion, the better. We are just part of the eco for different reasons. It’s more like, what kind of deliberation we want to have. Some type of voting might build to some metrics, but not necessarily all of them.
      3. Bill: yeah, there are independent thinkers that we may want to bring on.
      4. Prima: do we want them to vote or do we want them to participate
        1. Bill: +1 to include new organizations in the discussions but restrict voting to people who are “live” with at least 1 or 2 DAOs using them, or to people who have participated meaningfully in at least some DAO
        2. Ivan: +1 when it comes to discussions + deliberations having a wider set of stakeholders makes sense. I think someone vouching
      5. Kei: in neither of the use-cases are prone to attack, so it should be fine. Would separate more informal processes from formal votes. Formal votes would only deal with distributing the funding we’re given. Vouching in Groundwerk seems to work pretty well.
        1. Voting power? 1-org-1-vote.
          1. Ivan: aragon has quite a few people right now
      6. Prima: I like the idea of associating a vote to a commitment. You can deliberate, but your vote should not be involved in something that has something with identity if you dont’ work on identity.
      7. Bill: the standard should be pretty low and informal for entry, but when it comes to more formal voting, that does raise an interesting question of how much we should split it out, so people who aren’t part of something don’t vote on it. Which is why I think someone who hasn’t launched anything yet, should they be voting?
        1. Maybe identity doesn’t affect moloch, should they be voting on the identity standard?
      8. Prima: If you’re going to adopt a standard, you want to make sure that the standard you’re committing is sound. It should not be us who gets to vote.
      9. Prima: the people who are part of the governance are committed to respecting the standard, and there’s a benefit to staying in. If you engage in voting on a particular feature, there is an understanding (could be very loose), the reason you vote on it is you are staking and committing to respect that standard. Okay if you don’t do it, there’s no accountability mechanism, but it’s a rule of thumb.
      10. Bill: norms are a good place to start rather than on-chain rules.
      11. Kei: we should use the current system through a couple of more votes, and then see if we want to implement it off-chain.
      12. Bill: on budget, the more topline the better, good to have a community vote on the high-level stuff, and the people with strong opinions can have a budget subDAO.
    Examples:
       
      From last meeting: Summary: We decided to set up a simple Snapshot or other voting system to track sentiment in DAOstar. Reasoning: DAOstar represents a wide cross-section of the current DAO ecosystem, and the outcomes of these non-binding votes could be useful for representing the direction & will of the community. Further, while a DAOstar DAO could do lots of things, we wanted to start with something lightweight that didn't distract from the key work of building the standard. We also agreed to plan a physical roundtable meeting, possibly attached to Gitcoin's Schelling Point or some other event, at ETH Denver.
      Â