Indeed, proposal has been up for 11 days and is going for vote tomorrow…
There is a lot of hidden accusations but let’s try to use facts to answer them:
1. This is an act of centralization by the core team
Over the past 18 months of governance Paladin has not advanced one single bit towards more decentralization, nor technically, nor socially. This proposal aims to solve this. Don’t you find it paradoxical to accuse us of centralizing the project while refusing any new initiative?
Additionally, challenge periods are recommended to be 1-3 day. Knowing that this would be exclusively used to access PAL budget and, later on, parameters, this seems entirely reasonable.
2. This gives much more work for signers
Yes, this is the foundation of the proposal: empower a select number of contributors to be much more active. It would effectively 20x their pay and become a real spending line for the DAO. I think it is however important to highlight that the amount of expected work isn’t as high as you make. In 18 months we have distributed one grant (reviewed 5), writing a proposal per week + reports.
Now, you just said the reports could be automated on Den (and thank you for the recommendation of making it public, we’ll enable this), so that would mean that seven people would have to collectively write 4 proposals, sign a few transactions and review a grant quarter. Is 1000-1500$ honestly insufficient? If so, I am sorry but we live in different worlds financially speaking
Councilors will become the most active ones, but delegates are more than welcome to participate, they just won’t be paid for it.
3. On toxicity
Just to be clear, are you saying we should tolerate unacceptable behaviours in the DAO’s workspace? Insulting, diminishing or harassing in unacceptable and we should strive to make collaboration as healthy as possible between contributors. We can modify this to simply implement a very traditional Code of Conduct. And even then the proposal has to actually pass for the councilor to be kicked, would why anyone support a proposal kicking a perfectly good contributor if it isn’t well founded?
Sure, we can do this, but the goal is to reduce risk over the PAL supply.
Considering treasury under management is going down by 6x and we’re adding a timelock on some functions, it should be a no brainer. We do not need 9 signers, it is too much considering both the amount in the treasury without PAL and the size of our community.
The interpretation of this vote is entirely wrong. We are not changing everything, just adding a timelock and empowering signers into a new role with fair compensation. Everything else still stands. Additionally, 7 active councilors will be better than the current situation.
Feel free to keep giving suggestions, but the proposal will be pushed as planned, we are not waiting another 11 days for them.