What’s the next step here @Paulito or anyone else for that matter? Shall we put this on BanklessDAO snapshot to see what token holders think or ignore this post since it’s unenforceable anyway?
I don’t really like the voting options, so didn’t cast a vote. I would vote to allow ALL org units to do as they wish, which, given the state of the DAO, they will do anyway. Part of that is about a reluctance to make proclamations that can’t be enforced, but I also generally feel that way cause here I lean more to the autonomy side under the way we built the DAO.
But how people voted is very interesting, thanks @Paulito for making the results public. I’m particularly intrigued because most everyone who regularly participates in Governance voted to send it back to the Vault, while others voted to disburse. I think that’s a really interesting distinction, and am sorta curious why that split exists, but that’s for another day. To me, the distinction makes it seem like those who support return care more about org structure and longevity, while the others want to get paid. I’m not sure how that jives with my opinion to let org units do as they wish while ALSO giving deep shits about governance. I actually think part of the vote is about nostalgia and wishful thinking, as most OGs voted to return. Or maybe that’s where we put the org, even wen in rough shape, above ourselves even if it doesn’t really make much logical sense, as a form of signaling how we want to move forward, together. I guess by that reasoning, I’ll vote to return, as this is a place where clear signaling matters.
FWIW @Jengajojo I don’t think this needs a vote or further action, but that’s for @Paulito to decide.
4 Likes
From the voting so far the conclusion is already seen all Org unit should do as they decide with their safe tokens. Thanks to everyone that voted and also shared their opinions as well.
2 Likes
Unfortunately, missed the deadline, but I would have had them return to the main treasury consistent with the Treasury department request for all unused funds to go back to the DAO. I don’t see this as any different really.
“The multisig group was too small to pause funding of the DAO, yet their decision to do so was accepted, despite contradicting the DAO’s established constitution. Given this precedent, it’s not surprising that other groups are following suit. Therefore, I vote in support of the respective group retaining control of the funds and deciding how to proceed until the multisig signers choose to lift the pause on funding.”
This is the reason why there are very specific steps taken when a firm goes into liquidation/restructuring. Now Bankless is not a firm and there are a lot of implied assumptions (probably never written down) so let’s start with basics (draw what you can as not all applies in this fact pattern).
-
was there a legally binding employor-employee relationship? if so then such categories should document their lost wages or lookup termination clause.
-
was there a contractual obligation the partnership (for lack of better word) and individual contributors … if so the rule is to look at what work has been performed and measure out the portion due …
-
was the contractual relationship that of bailor/baliee … in that you hold goods on behalf of a 3rd party … if so then the usual path is to identify true owner of goods (digital or otherwise) and then apply step 2 for services due/outstanding
-
outside any contractual relationship, was there any economic harm (or tort) in that promises were made but mis/mal/non-feasance created damage. These can be calculated separate to 1-3
-
what is the nature of the token? if it is a security akin to debt and not equity, where does it rank if assets are liquidated to fund 1-4.
-
what are the priorities of 1-5 … naturally if the obligations are greater than realisable assets then who is at fault? … here the law meanders but if the conclusion is a general partnership then those who are actively managing would be personally liable. (not saying this is the case here but you have to look to the facts first, if only to head off arguments later).
-
Are there other claimants like tax or super or whatnot … again the law would set priorities so some classes are ahead of others.
At the end of the day, the abacus comes out and a negotiated offer is made to, if not make things whole, at least make everyone equally unhappy in that assets are returned to true owners, obligations are settled or haircut taken, and everyone writes off what they can and anyone on the hook (again not saying in this case but in general) is chased to take responsibility.
Usually DAO breakups tend to be hard-forks or quiet quits … liquidations in case of serious hacks. However, I’ve only seen one restructuring (post ICO when ghosted developers peacefully returned unused funds) so the scale of this will be something to watch. However, if everyone just grabbed or absconded with assets/tokens without fair accounting we’re on the slippery slope to mob rule. See Maxim#1 and #70.
