(Idea) My 11 Speed Proposals drafts on Governance

We all want the same things.

  1. To get governance sorted efficiently and as fairly as possible to the entire community.
  2. To get the DAO growing, including $JUSTICE token having more uses, etc.
  3. To start moving on with real proposals instead of just Meta (Governance) proposals.
  4. To Free Assange.

I propose a series of proposals to efficiently and quickly sort out a base Governance for AssangeDAO, which can then later be changed if necessary.

In my opinion, the first 3 proposals went relatively well, we seem to be united, and I think we can continue with these snapshot parameters for now as our DAO has relatively good spread of tokens. (No one person owns more than 3% of tokens, so I feel we are more democratic than a plutocracy).

EDIT: Let’s add the temp multisigs proposal first.

  1. Vote in 2 temporary multisigs.

  2. Should the Snapshot parameters of using traditional token-weighted governance with Quorum (3.5B tokens), Duration 3 days, 2 days pending time stay the same for now? (Above 50% vote wins if quorum reached)
    a) yes
    b) no - we should discuss further

  3. How many Multisigs should we have? (highest % wins)
    a) 5 with 3 to confirm
    b) 7 with 4 to confirm
    c) 9 with 5 to confirm
    d) none of the above - discuss further

  4. Should the current multisigs stay multisigs (if they have not yet resigned)
    a) yes - if they state that they want to
    b) no - let’s vote on all new multisigs - they will all be replaced (unless voted in)

  5. Should the multisig have a term length of how long they can remain on the multisig?
    a) Yes - we should determine a fixed maximum length (discuss further)
    b) No - they can remain on the multisig until they resign or the community votes them off.

  6. Confirm Multisig requirements
    -Not a US citizen/resident or US tax resident
    -Multisig cannot not have more than 2 persons. from the same country
    -Must either be a relatively well known/reputable person or has been active in the DAO
    a) Agree
    b) Disagree - we should discuss further

  7. Should the Assange Family choose half (rounding down) of the multisigs?
    a) Yes (2 if 5 multisig, 3 if 7 multisig, 4 if 9 multisig)
    b) No - entirely nominated and voted in by community

  8. Should the multisigs (or remaining multisigs that need to be voted in) be nominated on the forum and then voted in to confirm?
    a) Yes - let the community nominate mulitsigs on the forum and then vote them in
    b) No - let’s determine some other method to nominate and vote in the multisig / discuss further

  9. Vote on the nominated Multisigs to confirm them to Multisig.

  10. Should all current Snapshot authors/proposers (initial DAO founders) be removed when replaced by people nominated by the Community?
    a) Yes - remove them as soon as new proposers are implemented
    b) No - leave them along with additional proposers

  11. Snapshot Authors/Proposers - who should be able to put up proposals?
    (Initial Requirement that the proposals have been posted to the forum for at least 3 days, and have not been vetoed by Assange Family, and have been discussed with other proposers/snapshot authors)
    a) People elected by the DAO community (and then voted in)
    b) People who hold a minimum number of tokens

  12. Vote in Snapshot Authors (proposers)

Then vote on Operational Leader
Then vote on Community Leader
Then we can vote/implement Code of Conduct (Forum & Discord Rules) and teams can break off to form new proposals.

6 Likes

I think we should have a proper explanation about why an entire nation of people are excluded, and why that is, because all I heard was conclusory statements, but not what formed that conclusion.

Is there not a way for a proposal to acquire a certain amount of buy in, equal to the number threshold, rather than backed by a unitary person with a threshold? The fundamental problem is advancing meritorious proposals, rather than the name of the person who formats the proposals, the complaint is that the rate of proposals is too slow, because there are people who are gate-keeping proposals.

Thanks for creating this @Zylo !

One suggestion is to modify how the first vote is worded:

  1. Should the Snapshot parameters of using traditional token-weighted governance with Quorum (3.5B tokens), Duration 3 days, 2 days pending time stay the same for now? (Above 50% vote wins if quorum reached)

I think the rest of the proposals you have makes sense on first glance.

  • Should the 3 Snapshot parameters of Quorum (3.5B tokens), Duration 3 days, 2 days pending time stay the same for now? (Above 50% vote wins if quorum reached)
    b) no - we should discuss further
    I think there is a higher pass standard for major matters. For example, changing multi-signature members.

  • How many Multisigs should we have? (highest % wins)
    a) 5 with 3 to confirm

  • Should the current multisigs stay multisigs (if they have not yet resigned)
    b) no - let’s vote on all new multisigs - they will all be replaced (unless voted in)

  • Should the multisig have a term length of how long they can remain on the multisig?
    a) Yes - we should determine a fixed maximum length (discuss further)

  • Confirm Multisig requirements
    -Not a US citizen/resident or US tax resident
    -Multisig cannot not have more than 2 persons. from the same country
    -Must either be a relatively well known/reputable person or has been active in the DAO
    b) Disagree - we should discuss further

  • Should the Assange Family choose half (rounding down) of the multisigs?
    b) No - entirely nominated and voted in by community
    It is appropriate to retain one member of the Assange Family as a representative. The remaining places should all be reserved for the community.

  • Should the multisigs (or remaining multisigs that need to be voted in) be nominated on the forum and then voted in to confirm?
    a) Yes - let the community nominate mulitsigs on the forum and then vote them in

  • Vote on the nominated Multisigs to confirm them to Multisig.

  • Should all current Snapshot authors/proposers (initial DAO founders) be removed when replaced by people nominated by the Community?
    a) Yes - remove them as soon as new proposers are implemented

  • Snapshot Authors/Proposers - who should be able to put up proposals?
    (Initial Requirement that the proposals have been posted to the forum for at least 3 days, and have not been vetoed by Assange Family, and have been discussed with other proposers/snapshot authors)
    a) People elected by the DAO community (and then voted in)

  • Vote in Snapshot Authors (proposers)
    [/quote]

b)no - we should amend to :
Pending time : 24hours
Duration : 72hours ((In case there are special circumstances, the proposer team must convene internal meeting to discuss, when a minimum of eighty percent of the proposer agreed to act on, the voting time can be set to less than 72 hours but more than 24 hours.)
Quorum: 20% of the circulating $JUSTICE supply (excluding CEX holdings within the top 100 addresses)
Binomial choice : Winning option requires more than 50% of $JUSTICE votes
Multiple choice : The option with the highest number of votes wins
Single choice : 50% of the circulating $JUSTICE supply voted is required to adopt the option. (excluding CEX holdings within the top 100 addresses)
(The reason why single choice voting mandate the highest requirement due to there is no other option to contend with it, we should avoid using it unless necessary.

1 Like

c) 9 with 5 to confirm
In my opinion we need to have more multi-sigs to lowered the systemic risk, such as individual multi-sig lost contact or deliberately not implemented snapshot result.

Should the current multisigs stay multisigs (if they have not yet resigned)
a) yes - if they state that they want to
I believe Amir, Rose and Silke are doing well in their own part.

Should the multisig have a term length of how long they can remain on the multisig?
a) Yes - we should determine a fixed maximum length (discuss further)
My recommendation tenure of the multi-signers are up to one year.

Confirm Multisig requirements
-Not a US citizen/resident or US tax resident
-Multisig cannot not have more than 2 persons. from the same country
-Must either be a relatively well known/reputable person or has been active in the DAO
a) Agree

Should the Assange Family choose half (rounding down) of the multisigs?
b) No - entirely nominated and voted in by community
Let the DAO member represent themselves.

Should the multisigs (or remaining multisigs that need to be voted in) be nominated on the forum and then voted in to confirm?
a) Yes - let the community nominate mulitsigs on the forum and then vote them in

Should all current Snapshot authors/proposers (initial DAO founders) be removed when replaced by people nominated by the Community?
a) Yes - remove them as soon as new proposers are implemented
Most of the current proposers just don’t care about the DAO, that makes the pervious month looks chaotic.

More and more CEX will list $JUSTICE, these $JUSTICE in CEX should not be able to vote to keep our voting fairer. It’s a good suggestion that we should exclude CEX holdings.

Thanks @Zylo for the clear draft and hope we can agree on this in the next days so we can vote and starting having Governance in place.

All your points seems good and from my side I just propose:

– 1. 24h pending time will make things faster, with 72h to vote

– 10. Add that finished proposals should pass a Discord Temperature check.

– 11. Snapshot proposals Temperature check?
a) 21 active members selected by the community to review and aprove snapshots (quorum 11 votes, above 50% vote wins if quorum reached)
b) 13 active members selected by the community to review and aprove the snapshot (quorum 7 votes, above 50% vote wins if quorum reached)
c) none of the above - discuss further

– 12. Should be implemented a Code of Condute on Discord?
a) yes - as soon a possible
b) no - we should discuss further

and not sure if it will make sense here to add a voting on the Discord and Twitter Mods

also agree that we should veto $JUSTICE in CEX from voting, not sure if thats possible.

( @Andrew to make things more efficient, instead of giving your vote or explanations about it, please review @Zylo proposal and propose what you want to change or improve, otherwise we are going in circles and not forward. Please send your suggestions to amend what you think that can be improved in terms of voting options, etc. )

please review my draft of proposal on the issue @Zylo

Hi Andrew. I would say to lets fully focus on having this this proposals ready to vote. If members vote on having Code of Conduct then we can work on that proposal next, ant that should be immediately after being voted :wink:

Yo bro, I’ve proposed my ideas on the above comment, but sadly i don’t know who can i discuss with and how’s we’re gonna do the temperature check since our governance hasn’t been set, and i don’t know how to move forward while all of the current proposers aren’t responding to us.

I’m sure they will be considered and things are taking a bit of time (since Zylo and everyone else here are working on voluntary basis and probably have jobs).

In my amends above I suggested a possible temperature check based on your previous suggestions.

I think we should set a deadline (72h, 96h ?) for having those proposal amended and ready to be voted on snapshop so that we move can forward. Then vote on a concrete Code of Conduct, multisign etc.

good,We all want the same things,i support the proposals drafts on governance

1 Like

There was supposed to be 11 people in charge of putting up the initial proposals related to Governance only so that the community could vote on who should be able to put up proposals, but for whatever reason I seem to be the only one of these people on that list who is actively trying to get proposals up.

Nobody wants to gatekeep the proposals - we want to open it up to whoever the community thinks should be able to put up proposals… So the community should vote first on who should be able to make the proposals.

On the last twitter space we discussed that the proposers should work together on the forum to draft/word proposals and in discord we can also use temperature checks.

Proposals should be voted to Snapshot by community, not chosen by Snapshot Authors. They just do what community wants.

1 Like

Post proposals on forum (by anyone of community)
→ The proposals replied by most community individuals go to the Snapshot (not chosen by Authors’ opionion)
→ Community votes on Snapshot
→ Multisigs execute the voting results

No one should decide anything but the community itself. Snapshot Authors and Multisigs must carry out community’s decision. If any of them has done wrong, then he/she should be replaced by candidates.

Thats the idea we are trying to implemente with Governance. Anyone can make a proposals (via forum) and we are trying to decide on a community fair temperature check on Discord that could work as pre-vote before snapshot. It will always be a community decision that Snapshot Authors will implement. We just need to focus now in having Governance setup and running.

We need actual numbers and rules, like ‘most voted proposal on Discord goes to Snapshot and the number of votes need to be above 30% of total community’.
Don’t leave anything controversal. Everything needs to be solid and works as a machine, to stop the endless debating in community.