[DRAFT] Developer DAO Improvement Proposals (outdated)

In the short time that it has existed, Developer DAO has seen rapid growth in membership and engagement. Membership stands at over 5000 ERC721 HODLers, the DAO’s Github has had hundreds of commits across various projects and a few tools spun directly out of the DAO. The first forays into DAO governance came in the form of a successful vote for the initiation of Season 0, which listed key objectives for the Season. Key features of Season 0 are the formalisation of the DAO structure through guilds, ratification of Mission, Vision and Values and the appointment of core team members who also function concurrently as guild leaders. This document seeks to provide clarity on DAO governance, proposal formulation and guild governance proposals.


Presently, we have a highly-motivated membership that wants to contribute through various means. There’s a growing number of people stepping up to help grow the DAO by contributing their time, network and skills and they need clarity around which ideas require a Snapshot vote, which ideas are best handled as a guild proposal and which amount to a governance proposal. This document proposes specific items that require a DAO-wide governance decision.

There are some decisions/ideas/proposals that are best handled at a guild level and every guild is free to determine what process they would like to put in place for their internal governance. As an example, @with-heart penned the “Request for Comment” specification for the Developer’s Guild which gives a useful and concise proposal for guild-level governance decisions.

In Season 0, we voted for the Core Team (CT) to lead specific areas of function. We mandated the CT to establish their respective guilds, build teams and processes and fulfil the respective responsibilities of their areas of function, all this is in line with the Season 0 proposal. This also meant that members empowered the CT to make certain decisions that are meant to benefit the guild and the DAO as a whole and while not all decisions require a snapshot vote, some decisions require member voting before decisions are finalised.

There is no simple solution in this matter. As an early stage DAO, we absolutely need to give the CT/guild and project leaders the ability to execute without coming back to seek a vote on every little decision. We do however need to make sure that there is transparency on actions being undertaken by guild/project leads while ensuring that final decisions come back to the DAO membership before final execution/actioning. It’s a delicate balance that can be struck with appropriate levels of transparency, accountability, trust, good-will and the core belief that “wagmi”.

This document PROPOSES Developer DAO Improvement Proposal (DDIP) as a governance tool to enact change in how the DAO is governed.

Developer DAO Improvement Proposal:

What is a DDIP?

A Developer DAO Improvement Proposal (DDIP) is a proposal that seeks to enact a change or changes regarding how the DAO is governed. As a start, this document proposes that DDIPs should be limited to the following areas:

  • Treasury. Any decision that impacts the treasury balance. This includes and is not limited to debits, credits, swaps, grants, loans, staking inter alia.
  • Core Team and Guild Leader appointments, removals and remuneration. At the time of writing, guild leaders are also core team members. If this were to change in the future, decisions around guild leaders and core team members will require a vote by members.
  • Advisor relationships and compensation.
  • Partnerships.
    • Partnerships are relationships with individuals or entities that are collaborative in nature, they may not have an immediate promotional value to participating entities, and are designed to unlock long term value for Developer DAO, and are generally guided by the “wagmi” spirit of Web3. Partnerships include but are not limited to relationships with:
      • DAOs and Protocols
      • Investors
      • Individuals
      • Other types of entities (Companies, Non-profits, foundations etc)
    • Partnerships can be proposed, championed and executed by any member of the DAO, and they will ultimately need to be put to a DDIP vote by the community using the DDIP Process defined below.
    • Sponsorships are relationships with individuals or entities that provide monetary support in exchange for promotional marketing opportunities. These types of relationships do not require a DDIP vote. The exact process governing sponsorships will be defined by the Marketing Guild.
  • Developer DAO Incubation/Accelerator/Investments. It is envisaged that we will be investing in Web3 projects in the near future. The final decision on which projects receive investments should be put to a DDIP vote.
  • Any other item that is not foreseen at this time, but affects governance in a material way.

Format: Yes and No option

Composition: It is advisable that a DDIP be comprised of a maximum of two of these items so as to facilitate rich, targeted discussion and to ensure that good proposals are not rejected due to a minor objectionable item.

Who can create a DDIP: Any Genesis Token Holder and holders of any future token that might be issued by Developer DAO.

A DDIP is not required for:

  • A guild related proposal that is not a partnership
  • A cross-guild decision that does not impact the treasury

DDIP Process

Season 0 identified a high-level governance process that is comprised of:

Conversations: Discord
Brainstorming: Discord + Discourse
Proposals: Discourse
Consensus: Snapshot Execution: Discord

The phases are further defined below:

Phase 1: Conversations
The starting point of any proposal is a conversation. Discussion of a DDIP should take place on Discord where members can provide opinions on the impact of the DDIP. There should be clearly observable agreement on an item before it enters the next phase. Phase 1 can be further broken down into the following stages.

  • Post in Discord. Start the conversation in the relevant channel. This can be a guild channel where the proposal most closely aligns, the #general channel on Discord or any place where people can discuss and share their thoughts on the idea.
  • Generate Consensus: There should be at least 5 other members who come alongside the proposer to show their support for the proposal. The duration for this is open-ended. The specific means of showing support need not be too prescriptive, the conversation flow should simply show that there are other people who think this is a good idea.
  • Support: Once a proposal has been sufficiently discussed and there is clear, demonstrable support for the DDIP and the DDIP has received the nod of at least 5 backers, it can enter Phase 2.

Duration: 7 days

Phase 2: Brainstorming

Once an idea has received support and has backing. It should be documented using the template so graciously prepared by @Sanipan here. A Discord Forum post should be created under the Proposal section. Further, a new thread should be created in the Governance guild #gov-discussion channel to facilitate community-wide participation and discussion. The goal is to receive even wider community discussion, review and comments.

Duration: Open-ended

Phase 3: Vote

A DDIP enters Phase 3 after a maximum of 7 days and a minimum of 1 day in a Phase 2 and has received observable support in comments and discussions on the forum. The proposer should contact the Governance Guild and request for the creation of a snapshot vote. This process should be permissionless and automated in the future. The vote should be available for at least 7 days. A proposal is considered to be successful if:

  • There was no technical/service outage that restricted DAO members from voting
  • The proposal passed with a:
    • Simple majority (50% + 1) and
    • Quorum of 4%

Duration: 7 days

Phase 4: Execution

The DDIP will enter this phase and the Governance Guild will be responsible for working with the required guilds/teams/projects/leads to ensure that the proposal is successfully implemented. The Governance Guild will also prepare a DDIP report to be included in the Season’s retrospective.


Bankless DAO Governance Process - Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.

Gnosis DAO Governance Process - README: GnosisDAO Governance Process - GnosisDAO - Gnosis

1 Like

Yearn Governance - Protocol and Governance - yearn.finance

Opium DAO: OIPS and Signalling Voting - Intro: OIPs and Signalling voting - Governance - Opium Network

1 Like

I like this so far, but i think certain types of proposals shoud require more than just 4% of the quorum. specially since Gitcoin may have 5% just themselves. I will look around to see if i can find other %.

Thanks @tonyolendo this looks great. I also wonder about the quorum threshold and my initial feeling is that 4% seems low.

Gnosis had a TH of 10% circ. supply reduced to 4% but I am not sure at this point to what degree the points they were considering in making that change apply to D_D. I’m guessing this will become clearer once the plan for the D_D ERC20 is agreed?

Would be good to hear others perspectives on the 4%.

Thank you for writing this. Very well organized and written.

I would add one additional specific item that should fall under requiring a DDIP - any change to the Developer DAO core principles or stated goals. While we would not expect this to change often, if ever, it should be codified nonetheless.

As read, I understood the threshold as % of votes and members, counting 1 member 1 vote and valid only for the current voting system. With this, a change to the voting system to be based on erc20 , should require a DDIP that, if needed, should define the new criteria for passing other DDIPs.

Hey Tony. This is good. Discussing it, now.

I totally agree on the point above