[002 Temp Check] Constitution Proposal
-
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
@Insomniac I can live with a 21 day (7 +14) voting period. It sounds reasonable enough.
-
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.
@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?
-
@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
-
@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.
-
@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 donβt see any mention of these ? Might need to mention these in some way in the comments or document
-
Also I think token allocation as per the white paper should be protected in the constitution document !! contributors should not be able to use this veto to reduce community 10% allocation
@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.
-
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 donβt see any mention of these ? Might need to mention these in some way in the comments or document
@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
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better π
Register Login