[002 Temp Check] Constitution Proposal
-
Nice work! 100% support from me.
Having too many votes is not necessarily a good thing, we need to bring this DAO to live in a relatively short time.
Bull markets are the best to gain market share, but we need a working product first. -
-
-
Great start. The items covered are comprehensive, and the decentralization measures are well thought out, and thanks Selqui for the draft. Most of my suggestions are to include clearer language to what is modifiable, timeline, and so forth. Needed two reputation to post quotes. So here're my in text comments:-
Introduction:
"Some of the rules and procedures in the Constitution ..." "Some of the rules" is ambiguous. The document later says that constitution can only be modified by a 67% majority so let's just say "All the rules?"ContinuumDAO Governance Structure:
"They will be responsible ... in a timely manner." "...timely manner" is ambiguous. How about "...seven days?""...then the old Committee will stay in place and a new election will be implemented as soon as practical." Ditto. How about "... within three months?"
The Governance Process:
"Proposals will have a temperature check for 5 days." Just for the record (since this has been discussed twice on TG), I am oppose to 5 days as such tight timeline will exclude participants (even if they are few in numbers) who have real life commitments and needed to stay offline for a period of time. I propose a "14 days" temperature check so that citizens (who are willing) has a chance to take a look."Once they collect enough feedback (1/10 of the veCTM holders commented effectively on the proposal) from the community..." I am confused here as to the difference between "Ideas & Suggestions" and "Temperature Check." "Ideas & Suggestions" appears to be period for discussions, but "Temperature Check" also serves the same function to "collect enough feedback." In many communities, temperature check happens through forum vote, and if passed, move on to on-chain vote. We need to define these clearer. (I noted that this constitution did not undergo "Ideas & Suggestions" process)
"The formal voting period for the snapshot will be 7 days. The governance for Emergency proposals will be shortened to 4 days." On the period of Emergency proposal, I am taking a different stance - to encourage us moving faster than 4 days - to "24 hours." The reason is I have seen enough shit happening, mostly due to rugging, hacks, and regulatory actions, leading to a major token losing their treasury or funds suddenly. Recent cases include Multichain, Curve, Luna, etc. I have no idea if CTM is going to hold such tokens, but given how hard it is to change the constitution, I rather we are ready to act quickly. In this case, many citizens will not have the chance to vote. Can we make this process difficult to initiate by changing "Only a Committee member can initiate an Emergency proposal" to "...four Committee members," i.e., simple majority. This is to avoid the situation of a committee member went "rogue."
ContinuumDAO Proposals and Voting:
"The quorum for the voting must meet 20% of the total voting power." CTM citizens are relatively active though many other projects have 1% participation rate. Is 20% realistic base on the turn out rate for 001 temp check? -
Hello,
Good start I think!
Here's a few points:
Temp check - I always thought as this would be the informal vote; not a feedback round?
Temp check; should be longer imo. There is timezone difference, families, friends, work etc. 10 days minimum I would suggest.
"Once they collect enough feedback (1/10 of the veCTM holders commented effectively on the proposal) from the community, the proposals can move on to the next stage, which is a Formal Vote." 10% of vectm holders commented - seems a bit high to me - what happens if we never reach these amounts?
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?
Other Treasury Safe-wallets may be created in the future to assist in CTMDAO management and funds may be transferred between them, but they will follow the same rules as the No. 1 wallet and their addresses will be added to the Constitution as soon as it is convenient to do so. - what is meant by "convenient"? does this mean that dao funds can be moved to wallets that or not officially dao owned yet? I don't think this is the way? Seems too arbitrary to me.
"The ability of the Committee to halt the Continuum network is a temporary measure, which will be lifted once the network is more mature. After this, it will only be possible to halt the network using on-chain governance controlled through voting." - Define mature?
multi sig treshold; 4 out of 7. It feels a bit low. Theoretically it's fairly easy to get 4 committee members together to drain a wallet if they go rogue. It doesn't feel super safe to me.
-
Suggest 7 days for temp check (informal vote of interest in proposal) and 14 days for actual proposal vote.
It's 21 days in total and enough time for those saying they're not online all the time to participate. add the discussion period in between and its over a month for anyone to notice and participate/comment/suggest/etc...
at the end of the day, tech in the crypto space moves fast, if anyone wants to participate they need to be monitoring for updates or proposals initiations that are happening. am sure the team will communicate this via all official channels. saying irl things get in the way is not something that should hinder the progress of development and is entirely on the individual to manage for themselves
-
@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?
-
@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
️
