Do we have an evaluation of such risk? This seems to be our entire governance doctrine at the moment. Can we have more than a slogan please ?
Here is an example example of how other DAOs have been victims of Governance attacks. At the moment our Governance is on an ERC-721 token with 1 vote per wallet holding any number of NFTs, this provides some built-in Sybil resistance as it would be pretty annoying and expensive to perform an attack.
When $CODE is launched people will be able to freely purchase it on the open market thus opening up the potential of a bad actor purchasing all the available supply and putting a harmful proposal through Governance. Whilst still expensive, it’s MUCH easier and if say our treasury had $500k USD and it was only going to cost them $400K USD to purchase enough tokens to empty the treasury, what would stop them from doing that?
Would you want a proposal that empties the treasury into an attacker’s wallet to go through?
I assume not. So in order to stop that we need measures in place that resist that being a possibility. If we don’t have transparent measures in place that are part of our Governance procedures the only way to stop that would be whoever has the keys to the treasury refusing to make the transfer which feels much less democratic/decentralised to me, no?
That’s a very small minority.
Correct. The general approach we’re taking is progressive decentralisation i.e. moving slowly to ensure we don’t put the DAO at risk. What would you prefer to see?
- ~0.1% of membership? ( 50k $CODE ) Can we have a list of who those 5-6 people are?
At $CODE launch this the original Core Team, so me, @willblackburn , @wolovim @with-heart @dabit3 and @Erik_Knobl . The intention is to review this during Season 1 with the community to find the right balance.
- Does that mean that posting on the forum will not be permissionless anymore?
Anyone can post to the forum, only people that are allow-listed to elevate proposals can add a forum vote or move a vote to snapshot.
- Does this abolish RFCs?
RFCs were never a formal process, they were something created by the Development Guild to help members think about, share and get feedback on ideas.
I think this derails governance from the intention and need of it being a process to individual centred since a handful of people will as a result of it be able to derail and deny any proposed governance direction or activity with no recourse.
We’re all operating under a social contract. If this small group act in bad faith then I suspect the DAO will cease to exist as people will not put up with it. If it were safe to decentralise everything right away then we would do that however we don’t believe that is the case. FYI this DDIP process wasn’t created solely by the group that currently “holds the power”. Others in the community we’re involved in drafting this proposal, specifically @tonyolendo.eth made the first draft, but I believe many from the Governance Guild weighed in.
The questions you’re asking are really important and hopefully, the thoughts above shed some light on the thinking behind the approach (although not speaking for @willblackburn or others) these are my personal views. Really interested to hear your thoughts!
Side note, everyone is trying to move this forward in good faith for the best interests of the DAO, no one is trying to centralise power for their own gain or anything of the sort.