As mentioned by @jakelynch and @TokenBrice, good governance needs the right framework for the sake of clarity and ease of access.
This post and thread aim to inspire ourselves from other frameworks and find the right fit for the different proposal types of the Paladin Protocol. Once done, they will be hosted on the protocol’s Github and expanded on in the technical documentation (Voting - Docs)
Currently we belive there is a need to tier proposal into 3 types :
Paladin Upgrade Requests (PURe) for addition of new dApps to be managed by the DAO or large modification of the Paladin codebase ;
Paladin Constitution Modification (PCM) to any proposal needing a Constitution change, these will need a heavier quorum (20% or circulating supply right now) ;
Paladin Governance Proposal (PGP) for the other proposals, concerning treasury allocation, parameter change, partnerships…
This categories will allow us to modify voting thresholds, vetoing needs, types of voting, etc…
For example, PCM could be done in a quadratic fashion.
I’m a fan of the Aave template, but remain totally open to other models and spec modifications needed (aip/X-AIP.md at main · aave/aip · GitHub)
Thanks for starting the discussion on this @Figue
To keep it on point, I recommend we discuss here the framework(s) only and leave the discussion surrounding parameters of governance (quorum, vote time, and such) for another topic.
At the end of the day in my book, the framework is more critical since we can start with conservative defaults on the governance parameters.
I think PURe, PCM, and PGP could share a common high-level base, things such as:
- Proposal name + ID
- Oneliner description
- ELI5/Simple explainer
- Overview of means (PAL/dev time/other efforts) required by the proposal
- Implementation schedule/overview
I like Aave’s too, but it’s a framework made for on-chain proposals so it’s quite heavy and pretty over-engineered in our situation. There’s still an inspiration to draw from it though!
Hi there !
I completely agree with TokenBrice’s distinction: we need to consider separately the framework proposal and the governance parameters. Regarding the framework, a short form seems efficient to me so that members can make it their own.
I would add a section that would already contain the different voting proposals like “Yes”, “No”, “Abstention”. I have seen in other communities that these are often forgotten in discussions.
Also, maybe we need to clarify one point: the framework should be a minimal form that members can improve depending on the nature of the proposal. Some need more details like statistical measures to explain the process. Just an idea !
So, to summarize, a basic Paladin Proposal should include :
- Name ID
- A summary
- Reasoning behind the proposal
- Overview of means (Specifications ?)
- Implementation schedule
That seems quite complete, anything else ?
The bases are a set indeed, the one last thing I see missing is the rationale: what the proposal intends to achieve (qualitative evaluation) and how will it be measured (quantitative evaluation).
I believe that would be covered under reasoning behind the proposal. Or it could always be tacked on to that section. I think the current layout presenting by @Figue is good. Short, sweet, succinct and to the point.
Yep, it’s best to not over-engineer the base framework indeed, and quickly take it for a trial run with the next proposals.
Using it, we’ll understand very quickly its limits and lacks and be able to review the framework with additional context.
Should we take it to the tentative stage then, encourage users to comply with it for now, and look for our first scribes who will be championing this framework, help governance participants comply with it, and be responsible for its submission to the community when it’s time + updates?
I agree, but how is the qualitative assessment weighed?
Here is a comprehensive and finale proposation of Proposal framework. We intend to attach this framework to the Constitution vote coming early next month :
Paladin Proposal framework :
Title: Type of proposal (see here : Voting - Docs) + ID number of the proposal + 7 words max summary ;
Summary : One sentence explanation of the proposal ;
Context & Reasoning : Comprehensive overview of the proposal ;
Rationale : Why is this proposal the best available solution to the problem it tackled ;
Means : What resources are needed to enable the proposal : parameter modification, expertise, code modification specifications, cost in PALs / $ ;
Sustainability : Is there a next step ? How is the implementation overseen ? What metrics can be used to measure its success ?
Voting Options : Please don’t forget to add an abstain option ;
This is a well thought out and solid proposal framework.
It provides the structure we need during the early stages of the community governance system.
What was the thinking behind 5% of circulating supply required in vote power to put up a snapshot?
Great proposal framework !
Maybe we can add % of the total treasury allocated for a proposal in 5-Means ?