As new ideas emerge about how we should be operating or making decisions together as a DAO, contributors are encouraged to propose new guidelines for us to consider.
In writing, provide answers to the following questions:
Author:
@9birdy9
Proposal date:
2021-11-21
Provide a comprehensive, 1-2 sentence summary of your proposal.
Amend the governance process. The new governance process is described in detail in the full version of the proposal on IPFS.
What is the goal of this proposal?
The goal of this proposal is to amend the Governance Process in order to allow a for a more efficient process that eliminates confusion and promotes transparency.
Results of the amendments:
- More time to submit proposals for upcoming Funding Cycles.
- Fosters more community feedback on proposals.
- Produces proposals of higher quality.
- Includes Urgent & Emergency Processes that expects contributors to vote. This gives those on the multisig adequate time to act in times of pressing circumstances while also protecting the autonomy of the DAO.
- Clearer process resulting in less confusion to newcomers looking to become involved with the DAO.
- Aligns Temperature Checks with Town Hall meetings to promote community input.
What is the process being addressed?
Governance Process.
What is the current inefficiency in the process that this proposal seeks to fix?
Currently, the proposal process consists of a proposal period followed by two days of discussion. After discussion, Temperature Checks are administered for proposals. Finally, if the Temperature Checks receive the correct number of votes, the proposals are sent to a two day vote on Snapshot. If the proposals pass this final step, the multisig members are notified and given four days to finalize these changes.
This process has a few significant problems that have been changed with the amendment. First, the discussion period after the proposal period has been eliminated. This gives community members more time to submit proposals for a Funding Cycle. Also, Discussion Threads are to be made simultaneously to the proposals. This allows for more community feedback that makes proposals more likely to be of higher quality and more likely to pass. Proposal authors are suggested to make Temperature Checks prior to the official Temperature Check done by @9birdy9 on the 6th day of the Funding Cycle. This will provide more community feedback as well. Finally, there is now a procedures for Urgent and Emergency Processes. These processes require validation from contributors of the DAO and consist of powers that members of the multisig are given in times of urgent need. These powers can be found below.
What are the changes to the process being proposed?
ℹ Governance Overview
JuiceboxDAO governance is managed by a thorough governance process described below. In short, JBX token holders vote on proposals off-chain. Proposals that are passed are executed by a Gnosis multisig (mainnet: 0xAF28bcB48C40dBC86f52D459A6562F658fc94B1e).
The JuiceboxDAO multisig signers have committed to executing the will of the DAO. This includes exceptions to the Standard Governance process laid out in the Urgent and Emergency Governance Process section below.
Note: The multisig has total control over all treasury decisions and certain on-chain protocol parameters. The execution of JBX token holder votes depends upon the cooperation of these signers.
🟢 Standard Governance Process
Juicebox governance runs on a 14 day cycle.
Temperature Check begins at the start of a funding cycle. This means that proposals are to be submitted prior to the start of the Funding Cycle. Proposals are typically submitted to the community in the previous Funding Cycle giving proposals a period of over 2 weeks before they can be implemented.
Step 0 - Idea
When a community member has an idea for a proposal, they are encouraged to pitch the idea in the #proposals-workshop channel in one or two sentences.
If the community member would like to move forward, they should create a formal proposal based on a proposal template, and post it in the #proposals-workshop Discord channel. A discussion thread should be included with the proposal to allow for community feedback. Tag @9birdy9 and ask that it be included in the next Temperature Check.
Step 1 - Temperature Check
⏳ Begins on Day 1 of Funding Cycle - Saturday 5pm ET (22:00 UTC)
A 3-day temperature check (react-vote Discord poll) will be created for each submitted proposal on day 1 of the governance cycle. The temp check poll will be accompanied by a link to the proposal text and discussion thread.
During the temp check, the author can update their proposal based on the DAO's feedback. Votes are only locked-in at the end of the temp check.
Proposals that have at least 6 affirmative votes will proceed to the next stage, whether or not the affirmative votes are the majority of total votes.
Step 2 - Voting Off-Chain
⏳ Begins on Day 4 of Funding Cycle - Tuesday 5pm ET (22:00 UTC)
Formal voting is conducted on snapshot.org/#/jbdao.eth. Voting will be open for at least 48 hours. Typically, voting will open on day 4 of the governance cycle and close on day 8. All Snapshot proposals are decided based on single-choice vote. Some types of proposals are conducted by JBX holders, others are conducted by specific subsets of DAO contributors defined below in Proposal Types and Voter Responsibilities.
Each Snapshot proposal must include the full proposal text, a link to an immutable (IPFS or Arweave) version of the proposal text, and a link to the temp check.
Proposals that have at least 66% approval from 8 or more addresses pass are queued for execution.
Step 3 - Execution
⌛ Begins on Day 7 of Funding Cycle - Saturday 5pm ET (22:00 UTC)
The DAO's Gnosis multi-sig executes queued proposal on-chain. This process will take the remainder of the Funding Cycle**.**
🟠 Urgent & Emergency Governance Process
Purpose
"Urgent governance process" and "Emergency governance process" are broadly defined as:
> Making a decision without enough time to gather the level of input from the community defined in the Standard Governance Process.
Urgent governance processes exist to enable the DAO to act quickly to enhance the longevity of the protocol.
Emergency governance processes exist to enable the DAO to act quickly in extreme circumstances to protect the health of the protocol in the presence of imminent danger.
Expectations
Compensated contributors are expected to participate in Emergency Governance votes, within reason. A pattern of non-participation in emergency votes could justify a compensation penalty or the non-renewal of recurring compensation.
Urgent Governance Scenarios
Foreseen Urgent Governance Scenarios
- Reduce Fee to 0%
- Quorum: Discord poll with at least 8 affirmative votes and at least 66% of the total votes.
Emergency Governance Scenarios
Foreseen Emergency Governance Scenarios
- Allocate Treasury (Spend ETH or move other treasury assets)
- Quorum: Discord poll with at least 8 affirmative votes and at least 80% of the votes.
- Attack Mitigation
- Quorum: 3 of 5 (multisig + 1 paid contributor)
- Legal Measure
- Quorum: Discord poll with at least 8 affirmative votes and at least 80% of the votes.if time permits, or 3 of 5 (multisig + 1 paid contributor).
Unforeseen Governance Scenarios
In cases where none of the Urgent or Emergency Governance Scenarios apply, the DAO expects contributors to behave in the spirit of the quorum definitions laid out above. Non-standard governance measures should be reserved for crisis scenarios only.
👯 Proposal Types and Voter Responsibilities
Proposal Types:
Who Votes on Proposals:
-
All JBX holders
🌱 💰 🌀 🍄 🚦 🧹 💸 🖊️ -
All addresses receiving reserved tokens
🧃
What are the potential risks and tradeoffs of this proposal that we should monitor over time?
The Governance Process is an evolving operation. One amendment cannot completely resolve all problems or loopholes. Therefore, throughout the next few funding cycles, the process should be closely monitored and expected to be adjusted to promote further growth in governance.
Specifically Monitor:
- General understanding of the process by new members — The goal it to produce an easily understandable process.
- Efficient creation of proposals — Are proposals lost throughout the process or simply ignored?
- Quality of Proposals — Proposals submitted to snapshot should be flawless for the sake of clarity and historical documentation.
- Community Involvement — Does the community participate in the governance process? If not, what is preventing them from doing so?
- Urgent and Emergency Processes — Are they fulfilling their intended purposes? Are contributors responding appropriately to these situations?
Sponsors:
@Anonymous @peri @Jango @Mieos