Proposal: Governance Cycle
Summary
This proposal establishes a predictable monthly governance cycle (1st–31st) with five phases: (1) Proposal Submission (1st–7th), (2) Proposal Review (8th–14th), (3) Community Discussion (15th–22nd), (4) On-Chain Voting (23rd–25th), and (5) Result Confirmation & Execution Prep (26th–31st). It defines scope, roles, acceptance criteria, voting parameters, and execution hand-off so that high-quality ideas move from draft to implementation with transparency and guardrails.
Proposal Details
Cycle & Phases
- 1. Proposal Submission Period (1st–7th):
Community members may submit draft proposals to the governance forum (drafts must follow the required template format). Feedback may be freely solicited during this time.
- 2.Proposal Review Period (8th–14th):
Drafts are reviewed by the GTU team (if it exists) and the Consensus Unit respectively (as defined in AIP-12). Approved drafts advance to become “Candidate Proposals.” Proposals that are not approved are returned for revision.
- 3.Community Discussion Period (15th–22nd):
Candidate proposals are pinned for open discussion on the forum. No substantive changes may be made during this phase. Proposers are expected to respond to questions and help build preliminary consensus.
- 4.On-Chain Voting Period (23rd–25th):
Formal voting is initiated via Snapshot or an on-chain voting platform, using a one-token-one-vote system. The voting period lasts three days.
- 5.Result Confirmation and Execution Preparation (26th–31st):
Proposals that pass enter the execution preparation phase. Relevant multisig signers, execution agents, or partners begin implementation planning based on the proposal’s content.
Note: for months with fewer than 31 days, only Phase 5 is shortened. For example, in February the adjusted window is: 5. Result Confirmation and Execution Preparation (26th–28th).
Roles & Responsibilities
-
Proposer: owns content quality, answers questions, provides proofs/quotes.
-
GTU & Consensus Unit: conduct screening, ensure alignment, flag risks, publish rationale for decisions.
-
Governance Admins: stage labeling, pinning, scheduling Snapshot, tally post, and archive management.
-
Multisig: prepare and execute transactions aligned with the passed text; maintain changelog.
Record-Keeping
-
Each proposal gets a unique ID (AIP-No.).
-
Archive includes draft → candidate → final text, review notes, vote link, tx links, and execution status.
Attack Mitigation
Bait-and-switch guard: “No substantive edits” once in Candidate stage; any material change restarts the cycle.
Emergency controls: a designated Security/Emergency Multisig (supermajority ⅔) may pause execution for up to 14 days upon credible evidence of fraud, legal breach, or critical security risk—must publish a public incident note.
Execution safety: require pre-execution simulation links and post-execution tx receipts.
Communication & Moderation
Channels: Governance forum, Discord/Telegram announcements, monthly community call (optional) during Discussion phase.
Moderation policy: code of conduct enforced; off-topic, abusive, spam, or duplicate threads may be merged or removed with moderator note; repeated bad-faith actors can be rate-limited.
Transparency: stage changes and decisions from GTU/Consensus Unit include short written rationales; all votes and tallies are linked.
Alignment with Julian
This proposal concerns the DAO’s governance and aims to enhance its operational efficiency so that the DAO can effectively achieve its objectives.
Conclusion
Adopting this monthly, phased governance cycle provides a clear path from idea to on-chain decision to accountable execution. It improves proposal quality, reduces governance risk, and creates predictable, auditable processes that scale with community growth—without sacrificing openness or speed where it matters.