Governance Election: Season 8 - Grants Committee Election Submission

Governance
83

My earlier reply had been flagged as inappropriate. I have no idea why someone would flag it.

You asked if we know why people are making an assumption that the proposal says something it doesn’t say.

I suggested that perhaps people were assuming that they knew what it said without reading it because there is no mention of payment in the text.

I assumed you had not read the bdip because if I was going to make a comment that something says something I would go and check first. It’s a fairly logical conclusion to make that if you had read it with the intention of fact checking a particular statement you were about to make that you would know it didn’t say those words.

In my response I didn’t factor in the possibility that you might have misread it because there is no mention of pay or compensation in the proposal. I apologise for missing that.

85

At the same time I could have been mixing up proposals and temp checks because I’ve had so much to read lately. That’s why I was so quick to correct myself.

I can see what you mean however. There has been a lot of tense nature around conversations and proposals so I had wondered if it’s a side effect of tense nature around here.

I apologize if my misread or mixup affected you in anyway.

1 Like
86

I do, whenever I get the opportunity. You, too?

Well, we have the Governance Department to do this now in an organised, structured fashion, wasn’t that the purpose of setting it up (with all the paid roleholders) in the first place?

That is probably part of the problem.

I am surprise we even need to discuss this basic, no: rudimentary democratic concept of division of power/checks and balances. It is there to adequate ensure scrutiny and prevend undue influence from developing.

Just an example: 5/6 GC members are involved in a project that you either spearhead (GD - no, not alone, acknowledged, but to my knowledge you are part of the multisig there now, would then be part of the multisig of the GC and possibly part of the DAO multisig) or run (bankless Card - a number of GC members are involved there while one GC member claimed to have been involved in approving the vote on this project securing you 4 mil BANK ensuring no seasonal scrutiny on the project as any other is subjected to, creating a “state in a state”- well played, chapeau !)

Rc5nE1682587661
Rc5nE16825876611200×900 124 KB

87

I would think that it concerns the three entities running some kind of governance function: GC, GD, DAO multisig. GD is the only one with an underbelly, because it was set up as a Department. I personally would not go as far as to say the pure membership in the Governance Department itself constitutes an issue (even if suppose one could make the argument), but what certainly may casue an issue is being a roleholder (and multisigner) there and in one of the other entities.

1 Like
88

:man_shrugging: quite possibly. May put potential candidates off, too.

1 Like
89

The crux of the issue, I say. :joy:.

But a focus of season 8 should be inclusivity. That could give some of the push that is needed for more candidates to be able to step up.

I am not financially able to step up. I 1000 percent would. Specifically due to this post. I encourage members of the DAO to start making their voices heard, by joining things like governance, the constitutional review, guild syncs, and more. Also, when they join, they speak up. And that way, things can change, progress can continue (because progress is indeed being made) and this ship can continue to sail.

90

Agreed, that is part of the problem. The issue is not that individual entities have an area of competence within which they can decide without undue influence being taken from outside. It is that any individual, any time can put into question any issue. As was suggested previously in another post: “Then just write a bDIP”. The problem permeates also into the prodedures within the entities though - in particular regarding contentious issue.

It was suggested that they do in the DAO multisig. Argument being made: it requires a certain amout of work to set up payments. Fair enough, whereby it has not been paid so far to my knowledge.

1 Like
91

LMAO, what is this supposed to mean? Would you state that we have a long line of people who want to be actively involved in Guilds, projects, and Departments, but somehow they are not allowed? I just stated the facts, and the DAO and its Governance need to make it appealing to members to start contributing.

Maybe there is a reason for it? I am happy to answer any questions you may have, that are reasonable. First you said that multisigs are now asking to get paid - as a correction to my post, but then re-read the proposal and edited your answer to - I stand corrected.

On the forum, the CoC policy I volunteered to write was a specific CoC policy to address general issues within the DAO (submitted like a month ago).

The recent incident happened just a day or two ago, and your response to may volunteering to write a policy that would specifically address the Coordinape issue and any similar Governance attack (as the recent one), your response to my message - didnt you already do it - you read and left comments on the CoC, so would know I didnt address that.

I am not sure what this was supposed to mean “I suppose now policy creator”, tbh with you? I am a legal by profession, and I build governance, operations and strategies for Web3 projects from scratch - that’s where my skills and knowledge are, and that’s why I sign up for these things. Because I contribute with things I know, and skills I have.

Gov department and anyone else have equal freedom to join forces, put proposals out, get them voted by the community. Gov dept as a “centralized” unit has a task, and that is to build the governance of the DAO. Doesnt have the power or the ability to implement it - that power lies within the community.

I understand a lot of things are happening, but before accusing anyone of being edgy or too whatever, maybe reflect a bit on your language and the way you talk to others as it may be the reason for their tone.

Curious too why @Trewkat 's post got flagged :smiley:

92

Multisigs arent getting paid, but even if they did - I am not sure why that could be an issue for them to be in GC? Genuine curiosity.

This also an important part - once you establish this, you minimize that outside influence. Humans are not smart contracts so they are not biased and subjective at all; on the other hand smart contracts cannot account for the human factor - so we gotta find a middle ground and do the best we can to minimize any bias, subjectivity, etc etc.

93

Huh? I was actually meaning it as a tone of concern. Because I care.

I also care about @Trewkat s feelings, so I see that I made a mistake and mixed up proposals/temp checks (hell at this rate I could have even dreamt it) so I acknowledged it, I also acknowledged that she has a stake in a lot of these documents, so my mix up could potentially have affected her. That is why I apologized. and moved on.

That does not mean that I think she was in the wrong, because she had an opinion about what I said. I also had an opinion.

But, ask yourself, if you’re a new contributor, and you want to get involved. If you see someone that is expressing an opinion that may differ, and that person absolutely get flayed (not by @Trewkat, you did not flay me :joy:) that person could get scared.

If you see that you had an aspiration to join grants committee, and you see that an emergent leader say that he does not see anyone able to do this. That could also potentially scare you.

The community is on edge. I am on edge. I’m fascinated by the fact that you think this was anything but just stating facts.

94

Sure:) Happy to see we sorted it out :wink:

95

Sorted what out? I’m absolutely confused at this moment.

96

You are now creating a policy for bdao, so that means I suppose you are a policy creator. No where in this universe did I even remotely discuss your legal profession or anything outside of bdao.

However! This doesn’t mean that I have a problem with it. Or with you.

97

Thought we sorted out the confusion.

I still have no clue why comments you made, but I think it’s just unnecessary to keep on discussing it. Everyone has their own opinion, and we contribute with it. Let’s focus on actual and DAO challenges we as a caring collective can solve.

98

Understood. Thank you for your time.

99

The more i read the more difficult goes to the election, too many good members that are applying. Maybe we can make subcommittee , Like Public Goods, Relations, Governance, just saying.

1 Like
100

Best you take a look at the different aspect that being part of the DAO multisig (the main DAO multisig I mean here) entails in future.

101

Fully acknowledging that, yes, we have overlaps in terms of power, and we need to be careful and manage that as a DAO.

An additional acknowledgement to that is, that happens because of people that are willing to take on the responsibilities, do the work, and are recognized by the DAO.

When you add that this isn’t compensated well (if at all in some positions) you have a recipe for finding and identifying the highest and most value aligned people that you WANT in these positions. (IMO)

From there, @links points come into play, that we have enough of those people engaged that it is decentralized enough to decrease risk associated with systemic level threats.

Worth considering is, why divide power, and what is a wise implementation of that. It is meant to ensure that a system is kept healthy and minimize the risk of exploitation by actors who may or may not be aligned to the larger system.

If you have identified alignment, then the scope of the requirements for that division change.

If BDAO was a defi platform swimming in cash, we would have reason to be limiting and extremely suspect of any overlap, and would need to implement org level divisions of power.
I imagine we would also be swimming in contributors (both positive and exploitative).

Right now though, I think unit level decentralization (multisig) does suffice (IMO).

Personally, I want to get to the point where we can and should implement that level of division.

I just don’t think we are there YET.

4 Likes
102

Great to see you applying! I feel like your deep understanding of DAOs and your experience in legal will be a major advantage and will serve bDAO well.

103

Hi iced, thank you for the recap. Busy time at the moment.

I believe I gave my two cents on the issues you addressed already.

Let me say something to one other point though:

That “you” WANT(…], interesting. Who is “you”? And who decides who is most value aligned? Let us assume you mean the voter (actually the biggest wallet to be precise). Don’t get it the wrong way, but am sure you recall this:

image

(thanks for the 5% btw, even if it came at the expense of senad: initially I did not even feature :rofl:)

or this for that matter:

image

So either this was a deliberate act (why I wonder :thinking:) or ill judgement electing an individual after barely 3 months of membership to what you descibe as one of the highest roleholder positions we have in the DAO - given certain incidences even then. (Sprinkles: apologies! Water under the bridge. Just trying to make a point here.) Either way, this does not bode well for what is to come, if the solution is transforming bDAO into an oligopoly.


Hope I am forgiven the bit of drama :wink: