[SEP #4] SafeDAO Constitution

Proposals Phase 2: Voting
37

Thanks everyone for providing feedback to the initial SafeDAO Constitution proposal. I have studied the discussion and implemented some changes based on them. Below I outline what changes where considered / made including the respective argumentation.

In general I’d like to move forward with this initial version as a ‘minimum viable constitution”, fully aware that further iterations are expected in the next months. We will only be able to fully understand the limitations/shortcomings of the current constitution once there is a first version ratified and used in practice.

  • Also non-fee changes can compromise Safe as a public good (@jierlich )

    • Change:
      • Principle “Safe as Public good” was changed to not just focus on fees but changes in general that could compromise the public good nature of Safe
    • Argumentation:
      • As Jonah rightfully points out, there may be various changes that could conflict with Safe being a public good that go beyond fees being introduced, therefore I used a more vague language

  • We should define ecosystem stakeholders related to principles 1 and 2 (@adamhurwitz.eth , @Melodic_Platypus @jierlich )

    • Change:
      • Specified that this phrase refers to stakeholders in the Safe Ecosystem in principle 1
      • Mention of builders, users and token holders when it comes to balancing token mechanism effects
    • Argumentation:
      • While I see value in defining stakeholders more clearly, there is a danger of creating a too narrow definition, as not all stakeholders might be obvious at this point. I refined some sentences to hint towards stakeholder (user, builder, token holder) but would not give an overall definition of SafeDAO stakeholder at this point.
      • Future refinements of the constitution could be more explicit about the stakeholders, once there is more certainty about different roles in the ecosystem.

  • Goals read like values (@links )

    • No change
    • Argumentation:
      • I understand goals more as “what” the SafeDAO should achieve, and values as “how” those goals should be achieved. While I understand that it can be valuable (pun intended) to have values further defined, maybe even formalized as part of the constitution, I feel like we need a bit more maturity in the SafeDAO to better understand the shared values of the community and would rather see them added in a future update.

  • The copy should read more emotional (@links )

    • Change
      • I added some more sentences that allude to the importance of achieving this missions, including reducing reliance on custodians and therefore reducing counterparty risks etc. in web3
    • Argumentation:
      • Especially since the FTX blow-out, the value of self-custody became more clear for mainstream users, the constitution should also reflect the learnings and highlight the resulting importance of achieving our mission

  • We should define metrics as part of the constitution (@adamhurwitz.eth , @jierlich )

    • No change
    • Argumentation:
      • Metrics should not be part of the initial constitution to keep it maximally agreeable and long-lasting.
      • That said, metrics are crucial and need to be carefully designed and defined, not only for the constitution but also for OBRA. A separate SEP should initiate a discussion on defining these metrics.

  • Dispute resolution (adamhurwitz.eth)

    • Change:
      • Change phrasing to be more open-ended
      • Remove explicit mention of Kleros court but refer to a ‘dispute resolution mechanism’
    • Argumentation:
      • Increase agreeability of constitution by being less specific, while the generic description still matches Kleros and Aragon Court (a fork of Kleros), arguably the only two viable solutions out there that match this definition

  • The quorum is too high (@fig , @adamhurwitz.eth , @jierlich , @links )

    • No change
    • Argumentation:
      • The constitution should be harder to change by design.
      • SEP-2 showed that reaching a higher quorum is possible and will become even more likely while more Safe Tokens are being distributed and more Safe Token holders become active in governance.

  • Uncertainty around Snapshot Sub-Space (@quasimatt , @fig , @exa256 )

    • No change
    • Argumentation:
      • In order to enforce a higher quorum through Snapshot and clearly separate Constitution proposals from regular SEPs, a separate Sub-Space seems adequate.

  • Create complementary documentation/interpretation of the constitution, including examples of what makes a “good proposal” (@cryptobugbear , @jierlich )

    • No change
    • Argumentation:
      • It makes sense to provide additional documentation for the Constitution, but given the uncertainty on how the ideal documentation looks like, it feels too tactical to include it in the SEP itself

  • Don’t mention the Safe Token as a governance mechanism (@jierlich )

    • No change
    • Argumentation:
      • While mid-term I imagine the governance of SafeDAO to go beyond simple token voting and delegations, it is where the current SafeDAO governance process is today. And the main utility of the Safe Token today is to govern SafeDAO. With changes to the above, we should adopt the SafeDAO constitution, but I would leave the mention of Safe Token in for now.

Other changes

  • Change wording from “smart contract account” to “smart contract wallets”
    • Argumentation:
      • While there is a lot of debate about the right wording, SC wallets seem generally better understood than smart contract accounts, even though the latter might be technically more accurate

I have moved the proposal now to SEP Phase 1 stage. Please raise any major concerns with the current copy or if I missed to address a point that was raised above. Else I’d be happy to move forward with a Snapshot vote in about 1-2 weeks in case there are no more changes.

13 Likes