Agree to your points about an oracle for market sentiment and would stick to the plan to not include an indicator that will always be inaccurately describe reality but discuss market sentiment in real time as part of a future proposal. I believe that strategy found acceptance here over the last two weeks since there was little responses to that, didn’t it?
Concerning the voting system: great arguments again and it’s quite unfortunate that we’re constraint here due to the governance process which only allows single choice voting. Certainly something to fix soon with a proper governance framework.
As of next steps, I won’t upload the proposal to Snapshot myself due to the policy for team members not do to that, but anyone is free to do so.
Sir, we are very upset with the market condition, but we are also upset with you, these decisions of yours are very upset us, there are many excuses coming in the token market, the market is bad, we don’t. Token wants to come in this bad market condition. But you and I don’t know when the market will be good, so you didn’t decide to enable token transfer when the market was a little bit better, when you started voting, the market was going. Get worse if there was a big change. If not for the worst case scenario, Token Transfer Enable would have won, although many of us do not support voting, because of the fraud involved. Token equals 2000 to whoever has more. The situation is much worse than before, no one knows what will happen in the future, but my question is, if the market is not good in the next 6 months, will the safe team do business like this, or maybe? Do it, we understand.
Following up, this list grew into a more detailed table which we’ll share through a blog post in early January including graphs, analyses and commentary. Since this proposal will have ended by then, the post will also analyse voter participation in SEP-3 next to SEP-1 and -2.
We (1kx) would like to signal our intent to vote for option #3 of this proposal. Token transferability is a pivotal moment in the creation of a new DAO, and the decision should be undertaken with the utmost care to the state of the organization. A constitution, governance framework, plan for resource allocation, and token utility are all important considerations before proceeding. Similar to how a nation-state would not launch a currency prior to formation of a constitution, we believe that DAOs should look to ratify many of these key components as a community before rushing to enable transferability. Each has a reason for being included as a milestone:
A constitution and governance framework will dictate the DAO’s operating model going forward. It’s best to get this decided upfront with the stakeholders that have been purposely selected to receive non-transferable tokens for their contributions to the Safe ecosystem to-date before DAO membership becomes more fluid.
A resource allocation plan will decide appropriate expenditures and policies. It’s not news to anyone that ongoing sustainability is a core challenge within DAOs, especially when policies are undefined. Before potentially becoming clouded by market-assigned values, we should seek to build a framework from first principles.
Utility will underlie the inherent value of the token network post-transferability. Without an understanding of how the token will be integrated and used throughout the Safe ecosystem, it will have no clear purpose. We want to ensure that the long-term value and vision is appropriately communicated to the broader community before the token goes live.
Additionally, we believe transparency is fundamental to the proper functioning of a DAO, so going forward we’ll signal how we plan to vote in advance and publicly provide our rationale. We hope this results in other large token holders doing the same so that we can bridge the information chasm between stakeholders and build a stronger community founded on trust. We encourage public discourse and will make our intent known as soon as possible within the decision-making process so that we can collectively collaborate on the best outcome for the DAO.
Expressing opinion as regard to the relevance of Milestones is good but I guess this is late already as the #proposals:seps 3 has already been voted and passed with Option 3: All Milestones being favoured.
I personally think what needs to be criticized is the fact after 1 month this #SEP 3 has passed, none of the Milestones stated has left a proposal stage to SEP talkless of going to the main field (snapshot)
If we are moving at this pace, I don’t see all these Milestones completing till October.
Agree, I’ll start posting a comment once an SEP is live on Snapshot, another comment when the results are in (similar to OP, BitDAO). Alternatively or additionally, I could also edit the main proposal and add a Snapshot link up top (like ENS does it) for even more visibility, but that would change the proposal edit history and might be confused with contentual changes.
For now, I’d suggest I post just comments in each SEP in phase 2, but happy to discuss and iterate. Example below:
Is there a post discussing the governance framework here? The current governance process is so inefficient that it is a bit depressing. I think before reconsidering the distribution of unclaimed tokens, maybe the improvement of the governance framework will be more important, just like [SEP#3] as stated in Milestone C. “Suggesting a strategic, high-level approach to SafeDAO’s governance principles, processes and choice of tooling” should probably be at the top of the forum discussion, maybe someone can open a thread for a related discussion.
There is not yet a mature proposal on a governance framework yet, as some underlying questions around SafeDAO’s scope of governance are still unclear. When it comes to smaller fixes, that may be worth a stand-alone proposal at this point before we get to a more extensive, SafeDAO-customised governance framework later.
For those smaller fixes, I created a thread here for us to collect problems and discuss what should be improved with our governance process: