ContinuumDAO Forum

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.

I like the setup. My knowledge about the subject us limited so not a lot to add.

I have two questions:
There is a savings incentive to use ctm if I read correct. What happens if the mentioned 10 ctm is more than 10 usdc?

Is 10 usdc or an equivalent a bit expensive for transfers between relative cheap chains? For example Tron to BSc or ftm to optimism? Would we be competitive with other providers? Being cheap, easy and fast are important factors to gain decent market share 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

Looks like a good proposal, I'm curious what would this solve once developed? Like what real world use cases would this support?

Hello,

you guys put quite some effort in this already! As a non technical guy tho it's pretty hard to grasp the details

Did you guys put this proposal on the forum together? And can I read your part @Selqui as a more detailed part of @Jerry his initial proposal?

Would it be possible to put the tokenomics/reward/fee/locking part in a visual representation? That would help me to get a better understanding of it all.