Hello frens,i’m CryptoReuMD the champion of Nación Bankles, a subDAO from Bankless DAO, actually i’m learning about governance in some forums: Optimism, Arbitrum, Gitcoin, Push and Nouns just to mention my most active participation, but as i see everyone it’s getting the best from each other and for the governance process of the DAO to PGV3.0, we need to attest some of the best principles that we have in another projects:
1.- Token Gated Voting: Every DAO has something similar, a token that has some privileges, in our case it’s a Governance Token, a revenue token, and a payment one to the channel submissions and maybe further opportunities. Everything seems excellent for the value accrual, but this isn’t going to make any difference in the governance process and the participation of the team that were grantees or are investor in the protocol and as a design we have three different approaches in this situation:
a.- Investors: The ones that are here for revenue, because they believe in the project and how makes some solutions in web3 and the relevance of the evolution and the participation, they are not interested or have very low interest in the governance process, but also don’t make any movements in the price because they look for stability and quality of the projects.
b.- Traders: This are the friends that look for speculation and are market makers, the most of the interest its to get the strongest numbers for revenue and take all the benefits, they are not always aligned with the ethos of the project and maybe also have no interest or at least a little of the governance and stability of the project
c.- Governors: These are the people that read the forum, look for the new opportunities and are really aligned with the coordination and ethos that are relative to equity and understanding of the experiments in web3 governance process.
With this in mind we have different types of web 3 enthusiasts that are inside every project, and we have to be aware of how balanced this process is, and we have to answer for all what they think and believe.
2.- Delegated power voting. As we can see in another projects, with this type and different interest in our governance we need people that it’s more aligned and has the fully understand and how this needs to be driven, transparency, sybill resistance and decentralized, and this process it’s oriented to the participation of some outstanding individuals that are looking for the benefits of the coordination process and governance forum. The designation of the community and participation of new people for the delegation, makes this process easier and low time consuming, since we don’t need to reach the quorum of the total token holders, and just for the delegates.
As i see, this is going to be a problem, since we are facing some governance capture of another regions of the world so to be in this phase of token delegation we need to solve some issues:
a.- Which tool are we going to use? Tally, Aragorn of something alike, to see full transparency and delegation, and we can start experimenting a token gated voting with low latency and low cost, not just signing like snapshot, charmverse or writing like discourse, we need something different to stop the spam and the Sybills that can take power just inviting friends to vote and win. This type of decision is important.
b.- We need to address all the different projects that we have, and also weight the candidates to have a channel in Push to the communication of the governance and voting criteria, to see a on chain stamp of what’s happening, we need to use our tools, and also weight if they have another channel, DApss, and holdings. Also if we have staking, are this is going to be allowed, to the voting process of the participation
c.- Establishedemphasized text retroactive funding for their work, some projects are looking for revenue to the delegations, and something that it’s working it’s incentivise the work and compromise with the project, we can give some funds to the delegates that have 100% participation.
3.- Full transparency, as you already read, we are a DAO and as we know and understand every movement and every decision needs to be addressed on chain and immutable, we can start using attestations to give the full transparency of the decision before the decision has any funds inside.
4.- If we can make a division of the money and the process, we are going to have a better result. Why? The protocol can’t decide on the money per se and the nation doesn’t need to change the protocol since we don’t have the knowledge of doing this. So with this bicameral influence, we can address the grant program to the protocol with two different approaches: Related to the protocol (PIPs, DApss, Chains) and unrelated (Marketing, events) creates a team that it’s related to the holding of tokens. And another that it’s related to the grants ecosystem and onboarding of new projects, token gated, with delegation power.
i think that this is going to be difficult and troublesome at the beginning but it’s going to be great if we make a difference in the governance of Push Protocol.