AIP-137: The Special Council Nomination Process

I see how this approach makes the process more inclusive which I’m all for especially as it keeps the door open to potentially very strong candidates from the industry who might want to put themselves forward for this role and bring their experiences and expertise to the DAO. But I still think what @0xSword is suggesting is actually quite achievable and even likely to happen anyways in the run up to the nomination process and during the process. We can assume Applicants will naturally engage in discussions at least related to their own nomination!

The trade off of not having a basic requirement for “experience and prior engagement in Apecoin DAO Governance”, would be that anyone can become a candidate or even a council member merely based on voting power of a relatively few even if they have no prior knowledge of how the DAO works.

I’m not saying that this scenario will happen or even that it’s likely to happen but I think it still doesn’t hurt to have some built-in layer of trust and familiarity in the process to reduce the risk of it being gamed or disproportionately influenced by a relatively few large token holders.

Quadratic voting system would have reduced these risks as a more sophisticated and fairer voting system where votes/tokens are tradable. But I understand that we don’t have that capacity atm.

This risk could also be mitigated if we have a clearer process on how a council member may be disqualified at any point post election for example due to unacceptably low level of contribution to their role. Could this be done through a majority vote by other council members?

Ironically we are in a catch-22 situation! We love to know what other eligible voters think about having some basic requirement for existing participation in Apecoin DAO governance, but only a very few (less than 1% of token holders) are here to voice their views on this! :woman_shrugging:t2::sweat_smile:

7 Likes