Assembly for an off-chain governance policy

This specification is to define a standard to the voting process that satisfies the virtues of decentralised governance in the absence of direct sovereignty.

1. Background

Policies put important safeguards in place for organisations, to refute poor and constitute fair practices of governance. Outlining a clear definition of consensus. In the case of decentralised voting, it is not a common occurrence that this is assumed to be a numerical static value, denoted as a quorum.

Quorum: a minimum threshold that the total tally of any ballot is required to meet to be deemed as consensus

While this can be seen as a benefit in defence of the organisation, it can also be seen as a deterrent to progressing the initiative if there is insufficient participation present. The issue roots from predominantly generalising that such value alone - is effectively a minimised policy.

Policies are de-facto principles to the voting process, which defines the parameters for facilitation. Concerning the case of on-chain governance, the policy is encoded into the smart contracts that facilitate governance, conditioned by the following parameters.

  • Threshold
    • Required voting weight to create a ballot
  • Quorum
    • Required tally of the ballot to be valid, regardless of the outcome
  • Duration
    • Voting timeframe of a ballot
  • Stake
    • Voting weight is time-locked for the duration of the ballot

However, in the case of off-chain signalling mechanisms like Snapshot that commonly operate in collaboration with a subsidiary. Aspects of the reflective policy become absent, for example, stakes are no longer time restrained but assorted by relative presence, recorded at a specific block height. The demographic can be extended to stakeholders who otherwise would not be compliant to vote, such as liquidity provisioners via custom voting strategies. Furthermore, on default creation of a Snapshot space, a quorum is not a prominent setting in configuration. Failure to specify such parameter is a direct compromise to the governance process.

The connotations of cost-effective governance are masked by the extended exposure to more stakeholders, at the cost of reducing the commitment to governance and disenfranchising individual sovereignty. Leaving it susceptible to manipulation from external, internal or subsidiary actors if no substitute policy is in place to form an equitable democratic process.

2. Acting groups

2.1 Subsidiary

  • Ecosystem/Community funds
    • A group of elected individuals that are entrusted to manage and align a subsidy of the treasury at the discretion of governance

2.2 Internal

  • Contributors
    • An individual who has a relative positioning in the organisation, often identified by remuneration or contributed materials
  • Applicants
    • An individual or group of, that is applying for or submitting work requested by the organisation

2.3 External

  • Organisations
    • A collective of individuals that hold no positioning in the organisation
  • Individuals
    • An independent individual or group of, that shares no direction association and holds no positioning in the organisation

3. Proposals

3.1 Authoring

To be feasibly considered, presentations must adhere to be concise and should specify the reasoning behind any request. Additionally, the relative benefits and risks to the organisation should be declared. The details and nature of the request should be described in depth.

3.2 Category

  • Funding
    • Subjects directly concerning expenditure requests from the organisation
  • Feature
    • Subjects concerning protocol configurations or developments

3.3 Context

All proposals have a relative association to their fulfilment and so a target demographic (see Acting Groups) can be labelled to which the proposal concerns.

3.4 Discourse

Proposals once drafted or authored should be shared to the public forums for feedback, which are then subject to a minimum recommended waiting period of 7 days to allow discussion to form before being balloted.

3.5 Parameters

3.5.1 Quorum

  • A proposal whose context concerns the internal or subsidiary acting groups and relates to expenditures less than or equal to 750 TORN, is assigned a quorum of 15,000 TORN
  • A proposal whose context concerns the internal or subsidiary acting groups and relates to expenditures of more than 750 TORN, is assigned a quorum of 25,000 TORN
  • A proposal whose context concerns the external acting group and relates to expenditures less than or equal to 500 TORN, is assigned a quorum of 15,000 TORN
  • A proposal whose context concerns the external acting group and relates to expenditures of more than 500 TORN, is assigned a quorum of 25,000 TORN
  • A proposal that is categorised as feature, is assigned a quorum of 25,000 TORN

3.5.2 Duration

  • A proposal whose context concerns the external or subsidiary acting groups, is assigned a period of 1 week
  • A proposal that is categorised as feature or concerns the internal acting group, is assigned a period of 5 days

4. Future enactments

This policy is subject to change at the discretion of governance and should be re-evaluated quarterly to gauge its feasibility and potential weaknesses. As the native asset of authority is subject to market appreciation or depreciation, significant changes in either circumstance should incur a reassessment of the iterative policy. Then if the sentiment for change is shared, a new policy is balloted and categorised as feature to deem whether such is necessary.

1 Like

This is a work in progress and I need help figuring out which areas of the policy should be balloted through multiple-choice voting options (possible through Snapshot). Additionally, feedback on any areas of the policy that may be counter-intuitive or unjust.

I think the clauses of sections 2, 3.4 and 3.5 are of importance to be assessed by governance.

Hello everyone.

Thanks Gozzy for this post. As we discussed prior to this proposal, I feel it is important to have a Snapshot policy. However we must be very careful not to push governance to an extreme slowdown.

Indeed, when a proposal is not of direct interest to the community but of indirect interest, such as recruitments or work related funding, few people are interested in voting. This is just one example, but I strongly feel that we need to have a soft quorum for this.

As a reminder, the last compensation proposals (@Marty and @Heimdall) only reached between 12,000 and 14,000 TORN of quorum.

Using the parameters you suggest here, such as a 25,000 quorum for expenditures of more than 750 TORN, Tutela’s funding (2300 TORN) as well as Marty and Heimdall’s recent recruitments (900 - 1800 TORN per year) would not be validated.

This is also the case for the Immunefi bounty which only collected 18,400 TORN of quorum

But also the refunding of auditing costs (2 different votes with the first one having only 2,500 TORN of quorum and the second 9,600 TORN of quorum)

Therefore I estimate that 15,000 TORN is more than enough for a recruitment/work-related/refunding (internal as you said). For the rest I do agree with what you suggest.

Here is a forum poll asking people what they think of each quorum so that we can gauge it by proposing different quorums, which will allow us to make a Snapshot in line with what the community prefer on the forum (even if we do the same proposals on snapshot, it is interesting to have a first feedback). Adding a “no quorum” as previously suggested by ethdev in the Opium X Celer proposal.

Do you agree with a fixed quorum for snapshot proposals ?

Do you agree with a fixed quorum for snapshot proposals ?
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

Quorum for recruitments such as these ones: 1,2,3 ?

Quorum for recruitments ?
  • 25,000 TORN
  • 20,000 TORN
  • 15,000 TORN
  • 10,000 TORN
  • No quorum

0 voters

Quorums for “internal” expenditures less or equal to 750 TORN?

Quorums for “internal” expenditures less or equal to 750 TORN?
  • 25,000 TORN
  • 20,000 TORN
  • 15,000 TORN
  • 10,000 TORN
  • No quorum

0 voters

Quorums for “internal” expenditures of more than 750 TORN?

Quorums for “internal” expenditures of more than 750 TORN?
  • 25,000 TORN
  • 20,000 TORN
  • 15,000 TORN
  • 10,000 TORN
  • No quorum

0 voters

Quorums for “external” expenditures less or equal to 500 TORN?

Quorums for “external” expenditures less or equal to 500 TORN?
  • 25,000 TORN
  • 20,000 TORN
  • 15,000 TORN
  • 10,000 TORN
  • No quorum

0 voters

Quorums for “external” expenditures of more than 500 TORN?

Quorums for “external” expenditures of more than 750 TORN?
  • 25,000 TORN
  • 20,000 TORN
  • 15,000 TORN
  • 10,000 TORN
  • No quorum

0 voters

Quorums for features?

Quorums for features?
  • 25,000 TORN
  • 20,000 TORN
  • 15,000 TORN
  • 10,000 TORN
  • No quorum

0 voters

I remain at the disposal of anyone for information or to give me your potential opinions regarding this Snapshot policy, for those who do not wish to discuss it directly on the forum. You can contact me as you usually do on Telegram and Discord or on the forum directly through private messages.