Proposal: Restore Functional Governance --- Maintain Off-Chain Framework, Update Proposers & Multisig Signers

[Logan]

@Gabriel

I agree I think first there needs to be a proposal to remove inactive members and make the new multi sig members updated and permanent.

Hi,Zylo @zylo_eth can you post the proposal draft on forum?

[sudongpo]

1）Since it’s a community consensus and you agree, let Zylo initiate the proposal.

2）At present, the community still has no power, and in governance issues, it is still a family monopoly. Even proposals require you to push forward.

@Gabriel Do you hope this will always be the case? Community governance still shows no progress for three month.

[Mike]

@Gabriel

5. Validation of Proposals

• After the 4-week forum period, the GTU completes a 2-week validation of each proposal’s:
  • Technical viability (code/tests or thorough plan)
  • Mitigation of likely attack vectors
  • Alignment with the DAO’s ethos and Julian’s values
• The Consensus Unit collaborates in these discussions, providing final guidance or concerns.
• Upon completion, the GTU will publish a validation report for each proposal on the forum, detailing their assessment and any feedback from the Consensus Unit.
• Proposals deemed valid and aligned progress to the multi-option Snapshot vote.

6. Multi-Option Snapshot Vote (AIP-13)

• All validated proposals move to a single multi-option Snapshot (AIP-13), which runs 14 days with 10% quorum and utilizes private voting (e.g., Shutter).
• The proposal with the most votes (and meeting quorum) passes.
• The multisig then implements the winning proposal.
• Once implementation is complete, the GTU dissolves.

@SilkeNoa @Gabriel @bz404 @zylo_eth @Logan
Is AIP-12 still valid? It’s been over a month since this governance proposal draft was posted.The governance issue was supposed to be fixed within 6 week，how long do we have to wait?

[SilkeNoa]

My preference was and still is to institute an on-chain system. However, I understand that no such proposal has been posted the past month, and that any other governance proposal to move the DAO forward is also valid. I would however suggest that Gabriel is not added to the multisig as he has a conflict of interest (as the representative for the family unit).

[Mike]

Thanks ,You’ve mentioned that any governance proposal to move the DAO forward is valid, when can we move forward with this proposal draft?

[sudongpo]

Gabriel said “a governance cycle”,I agree,The community is willing to do this during the transition period.The so-called legality and illegality, what is authorized by the community is legal, and what is opposed by the community is illegal. Let the community vote to decide.this proposal has been issued for more than 6 weeks, a vote will be initiated.

[SilkeNoa]

I propose that we add the persons who applied to be GTU members as authors also. Not just the currently serving GTU members. This will at least ensure we are not cementing the GTU for a longer period.

[sudongpo]

1）Good idea. With so few active people now, more people involved are needed. I agree that 35 and other GTU candidates should become proposers. We can argue and publish proposals with opposing views to let the community decide, instead of the current game of a few people.

2）But it is obvious that @Gabriel has never been active in the issue of governance and delegating power to the community. Not taking the initiative means rejection. Gabriel is afraid of losing power. He still runs DAO like his own company.

[Gabriel]

I’d only join the multisig to help execute the community wishes and add more diversity of region to the multisigners. It’s up to the community to vote on whether they want me on or not.

@SilkeNoa would love to hear your opinion on the impact of 3 or more MulitSigners in the same juristicion.