@kenorb raised very good points here, a committee goes against the DAO (it kinda contradicts the whole philosophy too), and what if validators don’t agree with the committees? DAOverse being the example here, most Public validators voted for it regardless of the sum (a one-off anomaly imo, it won’t repeat).
I think that most active members here in the forum will be reading and discussing about any upcoming proposals submitted tbh. Our user base in this forum will grow and we should seek ways to increase the members here, who can also contribute more insights.
Maybe if the community’s discussion here didn’t filter out the right questions to the proposer, the committee of experts (if assigned) can draft a pros and cons of any proposal, for all to decide, instead of making a final decision that can’t be over ruled (if such a thing is implemented).
The committees can help reduce admin work for fx core team staff, which in itself is a plus, by filtering out things of the proposition. The committee’s final summary of all pros and cons in this sense is good.
A side track thought and somewhat irreverent, is that maybe a system where it can show how many delegators voted under each validators could be useful… Even past proposals.
Not sure if a preliminary poll would be accurate, until if such a commission drafts all possible scenarios and a robust solution to poll accuracies.
Having said all this, it still comes down to the diligent supporters and validators.
In a way the committees functions is kinda filled up with supporters in this forum, which has shown through DAOverse, but with a little more guidelines would be better equipped. What other criterias does a committee instigate here anyways? If we can assess them, surely we can apply them to the proposer ourselves as a forum.
Future proposals will be entangled with more of the similar curiosities by this forum… It might be more, because so far the two proposals by the three long time supporters, existing in the eco already, outsiders imo may get even more questions. But that’s a good thing to filter out pros and cons.
Richard already highlighted major points to look out for in future proposals, and I think more can be added here, as we learn moving forward.
Any Proposals should include in details what these committees task is meant to be in the first place, that’s already 90% of the work done. So maybe if we have better questions set out and mandatorily outlined by the proposer, it will make the process much easier for everyone.
Team addresses should vote and even voice their opinions in this forum, which will be a good feedback already from experts, if they feel they can afford some time here and there, proposal do run for 2 weeks, plenty of time. I cannot see anyone not serious in this eco, esp as devs to ignore intentionally any future proposals. We are a massive committee already and everything is fine apart from who is going to vote or not from the team’s side.
Side suggestion, saying it as it comes to mind ; Maybe we can have a private group here for VC’s invite only, to view some of these proposals, maybe they can fund promising projects with their own risks, but using only fx otc deal, or off market buy lol…
What are the views from Function X Japan or Korea regarding governances? Would be good to hear.
I don’t think the quorum needs to be changed, 40% was a good number to start off with and most likely was a lengthy thoughtful discussion internally.
Maybe a short poll to see who will comment and assist the vetting proposals in the future, to get an idea moving forward. That data could be good.
DAOverse has prepared us for the best in many ways. It was a deep rooted project with lots of moving parts and detailed White Paper. In regards to time consumption spent was demanding but we still pulled through with the most active thread. It will be a task if another project can replicate this imo… If they do, its a win for us anyhow.
This leads me to think about categories, and what categories could pre-define fund caps, eg, metaverse 200k max, lottery game 50k, storage, Defi etc etc. Would not be difficult to determine, since the use case won’t vary as much as DAOverse in general compared to them, since daoverse included every single category, or the potential to do it at the very least.
If funding required exceeds max hard cap, a request needed to be made within the proposal and why.
Is this making the whole on-boarding process a tad difficult? yes it is but thats the point, free money shouldn’t be easy to get, and have to earn it and security of fx rugged is paramount.
So what’s the conclusion?
-carry on as it is imo
-team addresses vote
-company validators won’t vote
-Public validators must vote or slashed 0.1%
-Committee (optional) but not needed imo.
-Number of committees needed if so
-volunteers for committees, a dry run poll maybe
-larger committees already exist here
-clearer guidelines for proposals with mandated criterias
-categories can be done in a limited but adjustable way wrt fund caps
-More engaging outreach to 4 institution validators - update needed here for their views with voting, if slashed or not, best to abstain imo, also ensuring they’re aware what’s coming to the eco.
Can we do the next proposal better? yes I believe so with the last two experiences and better guided proposals presented to forum members.
Also before proposal is launched a week probation should be soft launched with preparations to get feedback from forum, before proposers make final proposal submission, that should be mandatory.