[002 Temp Check] Constitution Proposal
-
@Raini-Ng said in [002 Temp Check] Constitution Proposal:
@Ulliee Agree with all the points, but unsure about 4/7 multi-sig - it sounds like a good number. Is it reasonable to say, that a bigger issue, is that all the signers are from CTM? Since they already know each other, even 7/7 may not enough? In other words, at least four signers should be from outside of the community; that is, (eventually) we may need signers from matured projects like Curve, YFI, Abra, etc. What does everyone think?
I think that's a really good idea; 2 signers from outside the community adds more trust imo
-
@Ulliee @Raini-Ng The initial Committee as outlined in this proposal will only sit for 6 months, anticipating such discussions. Before that date, we will need an election of a new one. Question - should the multi-sig signers be a different group from the Committee? We did it this way to reduce complexity and the need for an additional vote.
I suggest that we leave it this way for now, since we need a committee and multi-sig signers to progress other votes, but return to decide if we should seek outside signers before the next election (requiring a constitutional change).
Alternatively, we could create two groups now :- Committee and Multi-sig signers and for now make them the same people. This would mean we don't need a Constitutional vote next April 1st, simply an election of each group.
-
@Selqui said in [002 Temp Check] Constitution Proposal:
Alternatively, we could create two groups now :- Committee and Multi-sig signers and for now make them the same people.
I agree with this, and they being the same people for now is no concern while CTM is a low stake project. Gradually, we have the option to elect independent signers when the stake is higher.
-
Looking good
-
I believe that extending the governance process can offer DAO members a better opportunity to actively engage in forum discussions and Snapshot votes. However, it's important to acknowledge that this extension might lead to a slower operational pace. Unless we strike a balance between CTM development and the scale of governance, there's a risk of hindering the overall development speed of the CTM.
Moreover, the higher threshold for the participation rate in the temperature check is aimed at preventing proposals from progressing to formal votes when they haven't garnered sufficient support from our community.
Nonetheless, we should strive to find a more balanced model that accommodates both the extended duration of the governance process and a strict governance participation setting.
-
This Veto Uillee mentions could be used in many ways not only to change the constitution ?
To amend the Constitution, a higher threshold of 67% is required. - How concentrated is the token distribution right now? As example; Would core contributors already have 67%+ of the voting power? And basically have a veto?
Will the CTMDAOVOTE token I received prevent this scenario ? as I don’t see any mention of these ? Might need to mention these in some way in the comments or document
-
-
@Pe You have the wrong idea about the veto. The only unilateral action allowed by the Committee is to stop the MPC network or regarding vetoing proposals, if they do not coincide with the Mission and Vision of ContinuumDAO. The tokenomics does not belong in the Constitution.
-
@Pe It is clearly stated in the White Paper that the CTMDAOVOTE tokens are to be used until the veCTM is ready for voting. Regarding the vote allocation, there is a split of 10% to veMULTI holders and 8% to core contributors. Please bear in mind that the airdrop was up to us to decide. I think we have been very generous. None of this is relevant to the Constitution vote though.
-
S Selqui locked this topic on
