Some have given very detailed advice, but haven’t seen a response from the team so far.
The safe team can consider adjusting the participation agreement (or not) as suggested above and put it on the snapshot for voting. (I’m sure the vote will pass, but the percentage of negative votes can reflect the level of acceptance of this participation agreement)
Some have given very detailed advice, but haven’t seen a response from the team so far.
Agreed. The legal language makes it difficult to grasp the essentials.
If someone starts participating again they agree to be bound by the participation agreement (again) as this would be linked on the safe.eth Snapshot space. By linking the participation agreement to the Snapshot terms, voters implicitly approve it by means of their participation in the voting process. There is no separate agreement.
The bylaws of the Safe Ecosystem Foundation do not explicitly state that IP rights will be managed according to the will of the tokenholders. Nevertheless, the (simplified) purpose of the foundation is to promote the Safe ecosystem. In this respect, it is unlikely that the foundation would take actions that are in clear contradiction to the tokenholders’ interests due to the fact that tokenholders represent a significant part of the Safe ecosystem. Even with the lack of an explicit statement, the Safe Ecosystem Foundation should endeavour to act in accordance with tokenholders’ interests.
In principle, the governance mechanism allows IP rights to be reassigned. However, there is a distinction to be made as to whether this should apply retroactively to existing IP rights or to future IP rights yet to be developed:
→ A reassignment of existing IP rights is only possible with the consent of the current holder.
→ A reassignment of future IP rights can be made in coordination with the perspective holder (i.e. ownership requires legal personality.)
Good catch regarding the mentioning of “Wrapped DAO”. The reference is due to the fact that in an early version of the participation agreement, the structuring of a wrapped DAO was envisaged. However, this would have made the agreement much more complex, as it would need to cover all scenarios with and without the existence of a wrapped DAO. In order to simplify the already complicated agreement, it seemed better to remove the references to a wrapped DAO and to adapt the participation agreement at a later point in time, provided that the community decides to incorporate a wrapped DAO. Consequently, the reference to a wrapped DAO should be removed from the current participation agreement and, depending on the community, a definition and strategy should be developed in a joint effort.
With regard to the liability risks in connection with participation in a DAO, it is surely the case that there is a lack of solid empirical data and legal certainty. The approach taken in SEP1 should be understood as offering a framework for SafeDAO and its participants to start with. It is not to be understood as conclusive, neither in its thematic scope nor in its temporal scope. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the rule-making of SafeDAO governance. Respective contributions can be made both now at the beginning and in the further course of SafeDAO. The flexibility for future changes is one of the main advantages of the participation agreement.
With regard to the practical approval of the participation agreement, it is helpful to look at the implementation in the Snapshot space of GnosisDAO or CoW DAO, for example. Those DAOs have implemented a participation agreement in a way that you have to explicitly agree to it before you can join the DAO.
Regarding the termination as a result of 90 days of inactivity, it is as @jierlich said an attempt to propose a criterion not only for joining the DAO, but also for leaving in order to avoid unlimited participation. An example for the relevance of clarifying whether someone is a DAO participant or not is to identify potential related party transactions and to deal with them in a proper way. Another example is the allocation of IP rights according to clause 10, as this only applies to SafeDAO Participants and Service Providers. This being said, there are several situations, other than liability matters, where it is necessary to define a DAO membership.
Good catch regarding the incorrect referencing.
Call for action: It would be a huge achievement if the Safe community would come up with a definition of “Participation” and “Participation Termination Event”. The current wording is a proposal that already accomplishes its purpose if it is seen as a thought-provoking impulse. It would be even better if an alternative proposal could be brought forward from the ranks of the community that would receive general approval.
I disagree with the classification as legal theatre. While it is obvious that a legal proposal is not everyone’s darling, its value should not be underestimated. Besides the benefit of contractual agreements being a useful back-up for governance structures in case the technical infrastructure does not work as desired, a document like the participation agreement should also prevent DAOs from being put under too much pressure in their immature stage of development. DAO governance is still nascent. It is likely that this will become more professional in the future. However, this will probably also be accompanied by the development of activist tokenholders groups that will try to extract value from DAOs for their own benefit under the threat of legal action. The implementation of a participation agreement could be a suitable mechanism to prevent this as a precautionary measure so that the SafeDAO governance structures can grow organically without such a distraction.
For now, there is a SafeDAO Multisig used for the initial token distribution, controlled by signers appointed by the Safe Ecosystem Foundation. There is no clear pathway how these Multisig signers will be leveraged in the future, so the participation agreement mainly enables the appointement of signers in Multisig setups. How this would happen is up to future discussions / proposals.
Hey @Christoph , It is time to bring SEP #1 to snapshot for a vote.(You mentioned community vote, I’m not sure if it’s snapshot vote or is it just forum vote)
The last feedback on this proposal came from three days ago and the community doesn’t seem to have anything else to add.
The peak period of claims is over and the number of claims is falling every day, with only 207 claims yesterday (only about 3% increase in token holders). Token holders have stabilized and are in line with a voting basis.
If the participation agreement has not been passed, then all other proposals cannot proceed. This means that this proposal delays all other proposals.
If SEP #1 starts a snapshot vote this week, it will pass around mid-October. If voting doesn’t start until next week (or even later), then we’ll need to wait until the end of October to pass the SafeDAO participation agreement, and I don’t see why it would take us a month to pass the agreement.
If so, why not start discussing the participation agreement before the token launch (like early September) and put the participation agreement in the claim app and safe.eth space? This ensures that everyone agrees to this agreement before participating in SafeDAO , isn’t that better?
Although I hate to say it, many DAOs are facing inefficiencies and this kind of proposal should have been passed quickly/early instead of spending a whole month after the token launch to deal with the participation agreement, which will definitely undermine people’s interest in participating in SafeDAO.
Hi @b1k00, first of all, kudos to you for actively pushing the proposal forward.
Timing of the proposal: A discussion of the participation agreement before community activation through the airdrop seems strange. First of all, a broad community needed to be formed through the airdrop, and then it was important to focus attention on such an important proposal as the participation agreement. If the participation agreement had already been finalised before the token distribution, there would be the challenge, that even fewer voices would have expressed their opinion and it would be even more questionable to what extent the participation agreement is supported by the community.
Decision-making speed of decentralised governance: As already mentioned, decentralised governance is more inefficient than centralised governance due to higher information and coordination costs. For this aspect in particular, it is crucial that an essential proposal such as the participation agreement is not rushed through, rather allowing the community to take some time to make an informed and prudent decision. The main discussion right now is structured around the difficult and legally unsolved question when a DAO participation begins and ends. In light of the underlying complexity it would be great to give the community a bit more of time for thoughts.
Suggestion: Due to the complexity of the proposal and taking into account the practical circumstance that many community members are currently traveling to/participating in various conferences, we should aim to bring the proposal to a Snapshot vote early next week.
In my opinion, we should accept the agreement as it is for now to limit the potential liability of everyone who will participate in the first and the following voting. After the first version, the community could initiate a second iteration to address the issues of the first version of the proposal, e.g. the uncertainty of when a DAO participation begins and ends.
Hello ! When you sent SEP to snapshot ? Now is new week
Now that the proposal has been updated based on everyone’s feedback. I suggest to leave it open for a final review for another six days from the update, i.e. until Oct 17.
@Bruce I agree with you that the proposal seems ready for a Snapshot vote already today. However, our current governance process requires a proposal to be open for review for at least six days. We have yet to define more granularly whether the waiting period also applies to changed proposals, and if so whether exceptions will be made (obvious examples are changing typos or format). Even though this last update here was arguably a minor change, I suggest to apply the waiting period of six days still, just to maintain a high standard in SafeDAO‘s governance and lead by example.
Unless the proposal needs another update in the meantime, I endorse it to be moved to phase 2 after Oct 17.
Common sense dictates that small changes to proposals should not necessitate a restart in the review period. Otherwise, a proposal can be changed ad infinitum and never reach snapshot.
Agreed. Let’s bring this to a vote Monday 17th. I feel participation with quickly fall as time frames are extended and red tape is increased.
Everyone has claimed their tokens that are going to at this point. We can’t reset the community review period each time a small change is made. The review period should be when the small changes are made. If it were the former, we would never move any objectives forward.
To be clear, I fully agree with you both! I did not think resetting the review period was necessary at all in this case, my intention was just to keep our soft governance / non-onchain governance to a high standard from the beginning. After 11:06 AM UTC today, six days have passed, so at this point I’d argue it’s worth waiting for another hour - but not much longer.
Hey SafeDAO community,
With this proposal having passed > six days in Phase 1 on the forum as outlined in the SafeDAO Governance Process, I’ve taken the liberty as a Delegate to submit the proposal to the SafeDAO Snapshot following the guidelines: 1-day voting delay and a 7-day vote duration.
You can find SIP#1 Snapshot vote here - excited to reach this milestone together!
Nice, limited liability for SafeDAO is a good start.
I have been entrusted with some delegated SAFE by some people as I have shown active participation in governance for various DAOs.
I am really interested to see how SAFE will evolve as a DAO and have a vested interest to see it succeed. As such will be following governance and participate where possible.
As for this specific proposal, though sounds interesting and if at least as presented may reduce liability for DAO participants, I am obliged to vote to abstain as I am simply not a lawyer and as such in no position to judge the effectiveness and validity of the proposed text which is rather legalese.
Indeed, it is… we should actively participate in it.
This proposal [SEP #1] SafeDAO Participation Agreement has moved to phase 2 for a Snapshot vote:
Start date of vote: Oct 18, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC
End date of vote: Oct 25, 2022, 4:42 PM UTC
Following the Snapshot vote, the quorum was met and the proposal was accepted.