We need hierarchy under DAO members' scrutiny. A new Senate system. - Discussion

Note: This is the beginning of an idea’s formation. Join the discussion and let’s see where we can go with this, how can we improve or how can we get inspired and come up with something completely different.

Imagine you delegated your votes to a senate you like. That senate makes a decision, gather with the individuals in a public forum like Twitter spaces, explain their rationale to keep their delegate votes, and move quickly in small hierarchies. Their power would be defined by how persuasive they are in their rationale, and how successful they were to convey their vision to their delegators.

The senate-like structure where we can delegate our votes to people who are under high scrutiny.

These senates could be paid around 0.05% of the voting power they gather for each vote, which maybe 0.02. Think of it as an extremely low trading fee.

What this does is:

It opens the possibility for quick and informed decision-making to take place with a rigid semi-hierarchical structure but under constant public observance.

Each Senate has to constantly keep its supporters convinced who delegate their votes every week with a little bit of skin in the game. They can make an earning of it.

Imagine a senate gathering 100,000 votes. If they can keep that amount of delegation by informing the public that supports/her, they can earn 50 $APES per vote. And saves the time for a lot of researching, keeping up with the daily agenda of $APE type of important tasks outsourced to the Senate for themselves.

For someone who has 10,000 votes would pay for this service 5 $APE, as someone who risked $150,000 by investing in the DAO, they can be substantially informed and keep their influence with minimal work by being briefed by their senate.

Although maybe a payment to the Senate doesn’t have to be per vote, it can be monthly. Like a maintenance fee of some sort.

I think we are going to need a hierarchical structure for sure, else, the endless debates among atomized community members with incomplete information are going to make the process dull and unable to finalize.

Let’s discuss.

I could be wrong here, but I’m not sure there’s a straightforward way to get this done given the way that Snapshot voting works today.

Essentially there’s some actor that has to actually execute and sign the vote. So at the end of the day, that might be one single account.

So given that it might take considerable work to create the mechanism described above, what would you think about this being done more loosely? e.g. using the tools that we already have today to accomplish a similar goal?

For one, we can already delegate our $APE votes to a given address today. See the current ApeCoin delegates here: https://snapshot.org/#/delegate/apecoin.eth

Given that the delegate system is already available to us today, all that remains is some way to organize around a given delegate. Those delegates could set up their own Telegram or Discord spaces to discuss proposals and collect feedback before a vote. Ultimately though it would be up to the delegate to execute the wishes of the delegators.

It’s not immediately clear to me why the delegates need to earn additional $APE for providing that function. Aside from technical feasibility as described above, what value do you see that providing?

I like the idea that @fiyu has put forth. I also agree that it is plausible that a small maitenance fee maybe needed for those delegates. I think this is better served with distinct and obvious rules, rather than something that is loosely written or agreed to. I think we have the power if enough people agree to change the way/ mechanism that voting takes place, or at least we have the power to direct the board to do so.

I think @fiyu is absolutely correct in that without this mechanism it is likely that we can not come to a conclusion about many things, except those with the most coin will control everything. Like I have states previously, if this becomes the inevitable case, then imo it is breaking the base tenets and spirit of the DAO for fairness and equality.

I coulds support a system like this.

I think going the way of the roman republic for this senate would be better. It should not be a paying job, we should have the most passionate and best brains working on it, not due to financial incentivization but out of their passion and love for the DAO. I think this is a start to a good idea, I have spoke on things similar many times.

@mg @Papasito @Mifune

I believe the financial incentive doesn’t have to be the goal but is complementary to the lengths the Senates take to gather information, make a case, and keep their delegators informed, advantaged, and overall happy.

Everything in this life costs something, and when there is a price tag on it, you at least know what and how much you pay for it.

We don’t want a corrupt Senate-like structure where a Senate puts a heartwarming face to gather sympathy but takes positions in their votes by making backroom deals with whales(in real-world oligarchs) to indirectly capitalize on their influence.

I believe a 0.05% a month fee is more than fair. It is a steal.

The person who manages those votes is going to be under a lot of pressure. They are going to need to constantly keep their perception of integrity for the public. They will possibly face challenges, they will contradict powerful voters and sometimes board members. It is not an easy task.

I think status games are so monkey-like for modern society as we can see in the rotten political structures in the world. However, transferring value(in this case some capital) when it’s due for those who create a positive-sum for the group is more robust, I would argue it becomes antifragile over time.

Ownership, accountability, and clear incentives are the engine of growth and harmony in my opinion.

Would like to expand on those more after hearing your thoughts.


I don’t like the idea of a senate and I don’t like the idea of additional governing bodies. I want to see us learn from corporate organizations and adopt /some/ similar practices.

What this means is that there should be divisions and full time positions for the following:

Administrative, Customer Support, Marketing, and Product Development. We also will need an “office,” to provide support to developers.

That’s my view on this. I don’t think fancy titles or a senate system is the way forward. The delegate system in place handles some basic checks and balances on the system as-is.


This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.