ParticleDAO Governance 1.0

Author: 0xJustice
Background: Proposed Beta Governance System for ParticleDAO

I’m proposing the following governance thresholds as a starting point for the DAO. We can’t truly know what our contributor engagement is going to be until we run a few governance cycles.

Part A

Step 1: Interest (Discord)

A Discord poll showing a minimum cohort of 5 contributors engaged and committed to pursuing the intuitive.

Step 2: Invitation (Discourse)

An RFC that describes the problem and proposed solution with the invitation for feedback or collaboration.
Minimum time: 1 Week

Part B

Step 3: Validation (Discourse)

A formal proposal using the provided templates providing the research and findings of the working group.
Minimum time: 1 Week
Quorum: 50
Passing vote: 70%

Step 4: Ratification (Snapshot)

Final Snapshot Vote linking to previous docs and history.
Minimum time: 1 Week
Quorum: 100
Passing vote: 70%

How does the community feel about these basic governance thresholds as a starting point?

  • Yes! - Let’s start here and iterate
  • No! - This isn’t good enough to start with
  • Maybe - Needs a few small tweaks then should be ok to start with

0 voters

DAO Governance 0.5

Proposal to temporarily adopt a modified governance process

The quorum issue is tricky in DAO governance, and we are not the first group to feel tripped up over it. It’s meant to be a safety switch, but must be fine-tuned or it doesn’t work at all. I’d like to introduce a temporarily modified governance flow for the time being. This is called consent-based governance. The basic idea is the following:

  1. No quorum is required (On Forum or Snapshot)
  2. More visibility (community call discussion for each proposal)
  3. Minimum time thresholds (Already listed in the description above)
  4. We talk through and address objections as they occur before voting
  5. Majority rules

We would do this until we have a better sense of governance participation.

How do we feel about this modified approach to governance?

  • Yes - Let’s start here and iterate
  • No - This isn’t good enough to start with
  • Maybe - Still needs a few small tweaks

0 voters

Given the number of active community members, getting a quorum for validation and ratification looks challenging at this level. Additionally, since Particle is suggesting that the relationship will only exist directly with the Foundation and not with Particle Corporation, we should understand what the DAO has and does not have the ability to directly implement, indirectly influence, and has no ability to affect within the ecosystem. Put another way

  1. What decisions are considered binding?
  2. What decisions are not considered binding?
1 Like

My guess is it will be tough to get quorum at the proposed numbers. How is quorum defined? Is it number of LIITA particles voting or number of wallets holding 1+ LIITA’s? It seems like we need to look into a formula for voting that prevents a whale from making quorum and passing the vote in one single transaction.

1 Like

Sorry @Cimply but what do you mean here? Governance is regaridng the paintings and therefore only has to do with the Foundation (who is the entity maintaining the paintings and covering the costs to do so). The foundation is a cornerstone of the ecosystem, and 1/3 of it.

Regarding Quorums, with votes we’ve put on the collectors channels on Discord with direct relation to the paintings (i.e. US Event Vote) we’ve had over 200 unique wallet votes. I cannot imagine proposals regarding the works to be a frequent occurrence but be quite major events, which Particle will help to promote and get a maximum of participation. I believe we could start with 50 and reassess –though happy to discuss it down of course and hear what the rest would like to say.

@0xJustice.eth are we talking about 50 unique wallets or “votes”?

@xchpets regaridng whales, we cannot stop someone who has collected multiple Particles to be able to make decisions and influence them. However certain wallets (like Particle Corps. and the Foundations) will not be able to vote.

The goal here is to allow people to collect as many particles as they want in each panting, thereby allowing them more weight in decision-making (effectively making it a little more “theirs”), we need to think within this framework!

While we all want to get to a point where we have a quorum required for a vote, I agree we need to start somewhere and this version .5 seems the right place for this community right now.

I’d like to second Harold’s question here. @0xJustice.eth Are you saying the DAO will work on wallets or Particles for a voting majority. This seems a bit unclear.

1 Like

Indeed, it is unclear as quorum means different things depending on the context.
Here’s the difference:
Discourse quorum = number of voters (no reference to wallets or tokens)
Snapshot quorum = number of wallets

In either case, we can refine this better after we get a few cycles under our belt and move forward now on the consent-based model.