Skip to content

Amend DAO Governance Proposal Stages

RejectedPoll

Proposal Details

Author0xd4f1…4df5
PublishedJun 26, 2024 13:33
Voting beginsJun 26, 2024 13:33
Voting endsJul 01, 2024 13:33
Snapshot#81e3aeb

Description

# Introduction The enacted governance that is to be amended is to be found here: [DAO Governance Proposal Stages](https://decentraland.org/governance/proposal/?id=5193f850-5c00-11ec-9c52-0d9746a59174). This proposal would amend the original policy of the passed governance to reflect the following changes. Any conflicts from this proposal and the original enacted governance (referred to above) will be superseded by this proposal. # Problem The original proposal is ideal, however the process takes forever. If Decentraland wants to make changes to policy, it takes a minimum of 26 days to get something enacted. That 26 days only can happen if the next stage of the proposal is immediately submitted directly after the passing of the previous stage. This makes it timely and difficult to pass needed policies or amend policies. Afterall, most of the time, you hear from people "The first proposal should pass easily, it's just to move to the next stage." All in all that is true, which essentially makes the first stage pointless. # State of Decentraland Currently Decentraland is not very active and seems like it has drastically slowed down. It is important that new policies are made to protect the brand and redirect Decentraland to a more successful path. However, this can take months. Months are almost like years in web3. Web3 moves fast and those who do not keep up, get left behind. We need to decrease the duration of the total time for these governance proposals to stay competitive. # Solution ## Stage 1: Initial Pitch **Purpose:** Present the basic concept of the proposal to gauge preliminary community interest. Content: Include a concise summary of the proposal’s intent, potential impact, and a brief outline of implementation steps. **Voting Period:** 72 hours (3 days). **Quorem:** 1 Million VP **Submission Threshold:** 1,000 VP ## Stage 2: Detailed Policy Proposal Purpose: Provide a comprehensive and formally written governance proposal after incorporating feedback from Stage 1. This will be the enacted policy if passed, as it is written in this stage. **Voting Period:** 168 hours (7 days). **Quorem:** 4 Million VP **Submission Threshold:** 1,000 VP # Conclusion This amended process should help Decentraland move more swiftly with policy creation and amendments. This also gives the ability to remove bad or poor policy. This amends the original enacted policy (link above). This policy will remove Stage 3 from the governance proposal process. From this point forward, all governance will be passed in 2 stages according to the policy criteria above.

Voting Rationale

0x247e…b418Against298,730

The three-stage process safeguards the DAO and promotes more well-assessed decisions.

0xBC02…Dc7dAgainst196,897

Exisiting 3 stage implementation is working well so there is no reason to modify it.

10 Comments

daoJul 05, 2024

Amend DAO Governance Proposal Stages This proposal is now in status: REJECTED. Voting Results: * For 11% 70,129 VP (11 votes) * Against 87% 539,721 VP (20 votes) * Invalid question/options 2% 16,202 VP (1 votes)

TudamoonJul 04, 2024

There's no rudeness. I just was pointing out she said "I" quite a lot. She can vote how she chooses, but if we want to give incentive to those who are active, it makes sense. Also was just stating a fact about there being no incentive to vote for what is best for the DAO either. Both comments were neutral.

HPrivakosJul 04, 2024

She is just saying that asking people to check the DAO every couple days is not doable, no need to be rude :)

BanJarodJul 03, 2024

Lol, thank god you got unbanned so you can be rude to people and hyperfocus on LL Nothing says "I want to engage with that person" like your never ending petty bullshit

TudamoonJul 02, 2024

You also have zero incentive to vote for what is best for the DAO. Sounds like you have a "I" problem.

TudamoonJul 02, 2024

I chose not to say anything in regards to people's opinions the other day. However, after hearing about a reputation based system and having possible quotas to give VP to those people, you can effectively eliminate those who are not active by having a smaller time frame of 10-14 days for total passage of any governance. In most circumstances, people are not on vacation for 2 weeks or too occupied that they cannot stop in. Having a month long discourse on a topic turns negative prolongs the in-fighting and arguing. Besides that, if you want to promote people to be active, then make it so you can be. After all, I don't see everyone with VP voting and that's why delegates are even an option. If you can't keep up, delegate your VP to someone who is active. 10 days in my opinion is plenty of time for discussion. There's no reason to prolong something for 3 voting sessions. If it's not written well at the second proposal, then resubmit it until it's written well. The first proposal would explain the goal and details of the second proposal. That second proposal if passed, would be the actual enacted policy. **TLDR Recap:** Implementing a reputation-based system with a 10-14 day time frame for governance decisions can help eliminate inactive participants and foster more active engagement. A shorter discussion period encourages participation, reducing prolonged in-fighting and arguments. Delegates are a viable option for those who cannot keep up, allowing them to transfer their voting power (VP) to active members. A two-proposal process, where the first outlines goals and the second enacts policy, ensures well-written and effective governance, eliminating the need for extended voting sessions.

TudamoonJun 28, 2024

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

DedHeadJJun 28, 2024

Voting NO, I have zero incentive to vote anyway. I do because I want to, but I don't have time to spend here every day or even days in a row. Thank you for taking the time to try and improve things though. Jenn

TudamoonJun 27, 2024

I believe the opposite. It will increase participation. To your point, we are seeing the results of what we currently have..

HPrivakosJun 27, 2024

The issue with short proposals is that it forces people to check the DAO several times a week and increase voters fatigue, leading to a huge declined in VP we are seeing recently (in addition to delegation being removed).