Thanks. I’ve heard versions of this “voting like a VC comment” from others too. I’ve not seen that happen, but in any case the point is definitely about more informed voting.
I suggest if voters need to be informed about basic functions and principles at the very last second prior to voting, the DAO is failing and in that case some new form of threshold - whether it be a higher threshold of awareness, pass / fail, both, etc. - is of great value.
Maybe we get there in part through this discussion.
I’ve heard it in a few different forms, yesterday’s being “for this amount of money you should be giving the DAO equity in your business” on the twitter space. Previously were very similar comments when I look at when people comment while voting “No” on snapshot.
When I try to match the no-voters on snapshot I usually cannot find them on on this forum or on the WG0 discord. So it makes sense to me to repeat the mission and clarification about non-profit grants as much as possible. I don’t know how else you are going to reach those that do not engage in the conversations here. But maybe that is because I rarely look at, or participate, on twitter.
Yesterday was an anomaly for me to listen to a twitter space.
Hello. We’ve recently just restarted voting after a long delay. Please consider holding on moving this forward until we can get the results from the active token voters. If this were to go up after a heated week, it could be voted up or down based on emotions. Just something to consider. Thanks Broono
I strongly support requiring 2/3 “in favor” for any proposal that has a cost to implement (maybe over some nominal amount) or that changes the voting rules or structure of the DAO.
I’m not a fan of crucial AIP info being spread in pieces across various platforms and formats.
Like you I rarely participate on Twitter, so I did listen to that Spaces you ref’d. I can’t say anything kind about it, other than to praise the AIP authors for keeping their cool.
What info was on-topic and germane to the AIPs could’ve been (or already was) put in one place - here - in writing which could be searched, read and easily referenced in minutes rather than 2 hours.
" I don’t know how else you are going to reach those that do not engage in the conversations here. "
I suggest the way to reach those who do not participate here - where the AIPs are actually presented, evolved and discussed, is to make this the place for relevant AIP info & discussion. The alternative is enabling uninformed voting, I suggest for the sake of further discussion.
What about an NFT or POAP required to vote on an AIP, which can only be gained by reading the AIP thread here? I don’t know if I even favor this; it just came to mind. Discord already keeps track of whether someone read, commented, etc. on a thread.
Or no place on a Stages stage unless the question has been posted here first, thus allowing AIP authors to answer verbally in the moment and in writing for future reference / comments?
When I posted this, I expected crickets and that’d be that.
Instead we have quite the opposite, and a variety of worthwhile ideas and avenues to explore in addition to - or instead of - changing pass / fail threshold for some or all types of votes.
Even if this were to go to an AIP Draft tomorrow it’d take awhile awhile before being up for vote.
As-is I expect to keep this discussion open as long as comments are coming in, then figuring out what different ideas are in evidence and how to best present those. Some may best be served by research or input / collab from the Governance WG0.
It’ll take awhile, and maybe I’m not even the one to lead it but so far so good.
Maybe the simplest thing that could proceed to AIP for the time being - on which there seems to be no opposition - is the idea of a higher pass / fail threshold for votes that change or add to fundamental tenets or operations of the DAO.
We’d just need to define that. Is there an existing list of “fundamental” tenets, operating procedures and values? I’d include the Mission Statement in that.
I’ve suggested splitting off super majority into its own AIP. See post above yours.
We’d first need a reasonable comprehensive list / definition of what existing documents, charters, AIPs (or whatever) comprise the DAO’s fundamental tenets, values and operating procedures.
Am hoping a steward, mod, or someone from SC will chime in with an existing link to those items soon, and if not I’ll reach out to them directly.
A fee hasn’t been suggested in this thread. Maybe that’s something you’d like to run with separately? I’m unsure if it’s within the spirit of the DAO/AIPs or whether its legally grey (I believe it is a legal concern).
@br00no has requested to extend the community discussion period for this AIP idea. This topic will automatically close a further 7 days from now. We encourage the community to continue to engage in thoughtful discussions through constructive criticism, honest feedback, and helpful suggestions.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
Yass! That should do. Knew I’d seen it somewhere … on the official ApeCoin.com as it turns out. Hooray for the organization of centralization!
Much thanks, AA. This is enough data and empowerment for me to proceed with an AIP Draft for at least the “new threshold for fundamental DAO changes” idea. I’ll do that soon, pending any further input or major objection in this thread on that topic in the next couple days.
Riffing off @Dar 's idea above, and open to anyone that has an opinion on this.
If it makes sense to add something like “DAO can’t accept profits, etc…” in wording on Snapshot, what about something along the lines of “Your vote is on ONLY what is in the AIP, and NOT on anything stated in Spaces, Discourse threads, Discord or elsewhere.”
Reason is that if you look at an AIP, a crucial link might have 5 clicks but 500+ ppl are voting so what is their vote based on? Often AIPs contain a lot of “may, will, could” vague language which is bad enough, but anything said elsewhere is totally irrelevant and can’t be held accountable.
Too much like IRL voting, with inevitably the same disappointing results when “promises” aren’t kept.
Off the top, I’d like to see SC (if it’s within their scope?) better ensure that an AIP when it goes to vote includes all corrections, clarifications, promises, etc. - or notes on what can or can’t be done, like accepting profits - before it goes to vote.
Your topic will be moving to the AIP Draft phase in less than 24 hours. Are you content with the feedback received or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?
If we do not hear from you within 48 hours after your topic closes, your topic will be moved straight to the AIP Draft process.
Am a bit swamped IRL, and there’s a few different discussions / ideas along similar lines floating around right now.
Please extend once more. I’m hoping for more input on the last item above, and need a bit more time to parse out which parts will go to a draft AIP - I expect for now just the idea of a higher threshold for items impacting fundamentals of the purpose, process or culture of the DAO.
It’s a serious thing that could have lasting impact, so I’d like to take the time to do as well as possible with as much feedback as people care to provide.
I don’t think that I’ll pursue my AIP idea to require a fee on certain proposals but would like to see 2/3 inclined for any AIP with an implementation cost of > 5000 APE.
Will your proposal contain some version of this or should I think about submitting a separate proposal?
