[Suggestion] we need torn partnership policy

Community
#1

This: [PROPOSAL] GNO:TORN Uni v3 liquidity pool probably not gonna be the last time that some protocol wanna work with Torn.

Note: this is not an attack on GNOSIS. Anything I discuss here is based on what I think about torn working with any protocol.

tl;dr

we might need to have a clear and consistent rule around who we’ll partner with and what we’ll do or not do

longer one

after I read the proposal. I try to analyse the deal but then quickly realised that Torn is a unique protocol. If we look at the base layer (what the protocol actually offer.) while for most protocols it’s will directly benefit from more volume, liquidity, TVL from integrating with others. For torn, it’s doesn’t seem to work that way. The Torn protocol might wanna be as self-contained as possible to be safe and private. (I mean not just the smart contract. all CLI, site, etc. the more things we use the more risk that there might be some mistake somewhere that might expose the identity of our users)

Also, I think Torn’s reputation as being safe, private, impartial, etc is critical to our existence. I would love to highlight that working, partnering with others is more than just the deal itself. But it also has other implications. I personally prefer not to see Torn joining any fight out there. also torn have to be decentralized we might not want any one group or person to have too much influence over torn.

So IMHO. I think we should have some partnership policy.

Let’s work on this together. I can think of 2 main topics that we might need.

An acceptable score of collaboration or What we’ll not do.

This is to make sure that we’ll not compromise Torn user or product.
I know that we will have a different opinion on this.

For me personally. I think should not integrate anyone into our user flow. We should always maintain a clean flow where users can use only Torn. I think it’s ok for others to integrate Torn into their product, create a new UI for Torn, etc but I think we should be clear that using those services might have other risks. Financial influence over Torn is debatable. I do understand that this might benefit Torn(token) holder but on the other hand, if Torn(token) become centralized or heavily influenced by some person, team, protocol it wouldn’t look good.

Partner criteria

I think we might wanna have some clear policy on this to maintain Torn reputation.

For me personally. Any is fine as long as it is consistent. I mean either we have a clear rule about this or we partner with anyone non discriminatively. If 2 protocols offer the same deal it’s should be clear whether we go with one or another or both or none.

What do you think?

2 Likes
#2

I think it would have been great to have more ideas/proposals in order to have a policy. VCs like to call it a deal flow.

4 Likes
#3

I highly agree yoyo, the one thing about open organisations is their lackof robust policies which leaves them exposed to exploitation, whether internal or external.

I’ve actually been thinking about a sort of framework that could be applied and reconfigured to any decentralised initiative, depending on their demographic, values and governance capicity.

Questions we should ask ourselves as a whole:

  • What does the counterparty have in common with the initiatives values or utility?
  • Does the counterparty share a relative topology, if exchanging authority (token swaps)?
  • What are the pros and cons of collaborating with the counterparty?
  • What value should quorum be relative to the critciality of the proposal? (such as partnerships, they should be treated as always potentially contentious)
  • How long should dicussions be realised before balloting?
  • Should the ballot be polled on-chain or using Snapshot?

Furthermore to ignore the fact that foul play could occur would be naive, according to openorgs.info - tornado is amongst the 25th largest treasuries in the industry.

2 Likes
#4

I think it is a very good idea for a company, but in the case of a protocol it seems to me complex to set up.
Especially since we don’t really have a large number of partnership proposals.

Moreover governed by a DAO, I think that it is necessary as @xGozzy had intelligently proposed, to set up a minimum delay of discussion so that the community can indeed discuss it before a vote.

1 Like
#5

It should be something actively thought about, as there is many layers to defining a protocols values. While it is complex, it could save the organisation falling ill to exploitation and prevent any tragedy of the commons occuring.

We’ve been seeing instances in the governance landscape outside tornado that signal that it is a real possibility to these new cooperatives. Instances like the DigixDAO dissolving and Sushi’s ongoing governance issues rooting from a lackof organisational structure in core actor deliverables, renumeration and fallback clauses.