These are good thoughts on re-evaluating ideas @v3naru.
I’d consider naming proposals that don’t meet the requirements of temperature checks and SEPs as “working proposals”, “proposals in-progress”, and etc. instead of “rejected proposals”. Working proposals or another option have a neutral or positive connotation whereas rejected can feel negative.
Its nice to see governance evolving to v2, thank you for the thoughtful suggestions.
I generally agree with @theobtl’s proposal although I’d like to see a path towards being able to make fast on-chain votes in emergency like situation. A six day discussion phase won’t fly in the case of an emergency. Can we identify what we would consider an emergency and establish a fast-track governance process for that?
Secondly, I think proposers should be obliged to reveal identity and reveal any conflicts of interest. I think this is a big problem with DAO governance in general and although we probably don’t want to legally enforce it I think there should at least be expectations clearly laid out so that reputations are at least at stake.
It’s been three weeks since the last reply, maybe there should be some new updates
It has been almost four weeks since our last discussion on this topic, and I was wondering if there have been any updates regarding the proposal. Looking forward to hearing any news or progress made.
Firstly, I want to express my gratitude for the thoughtful and insightful suggestions put forward in this discussion. It is through this level of proactive engagement that we can continue to build a democratic governance system for SafeDAO.
I write this response as a delegate from StableLab. We have been closely following the discourse, and it is evident that there are some fundamental issues that need to be addressed in SafeDAO’s governance model. We fully agree with the points raised above regarding the influence of whales, the lack of initial proposal screening, and the absence of a clear path for revisiting rejected proposals. We also agree with many of the sentiments expressed about the inefficiencies in the governance process, like the necessity for a fast track in emergency situations and the call for more transparency in proposal creation.
In particular, we see the need for a more robust delegate framework beyond the existing Guardians program. Delegates play a crucial role in representing the interests of the community, but their roles need to be clearly defined, and they should be held to a high standard of transparency and accountability. Delegate actions can be monitored and verified through a custom dashboard with regular meetings for accountability and alignment. This is a great example of what this could look like. Delegates would also be instrumental in authoring and vetting proposals, promoting community engagement, establishing and documenting processes, and optimizing resource use in the governance process. For unclaimed airdrops, allocation to the most active delegates can further decentralize SafeDAO governance.
StableLab brings to the table a wealth of experience in designing governance frameworks. We understand the complexities involved and the importance of developing a system that balances the need for inclusivity, efficiency, and transparency. Some examples of our past and ongoing work with DAO governance framework optimization include this 1inch Fast Track proposal and Element Finance Governance Process proposal.
We are fully committed to applying our expertise to help address these operational lapses in SafeDAO’s governance and look forward to working closely with the SafeDAO community to create a governance model that is robust, efficient, and truly representative of the Safe community.
It would be useful to examine how protocols like Rocket Pool’s oDAO help steward their ecosystem and see what can be used and improved with SafeDAO.