P-22: DAO Governance Structure Upgrade

Awesome. Love that. Believe this is now ready to be elevated to a snapshot if others agree - @wolovim @willblackburn @with-heart @dabit3

I can’t as my proposal ya digggg. still happy for changes etc. ofc

1 Like

Made one more sweep to work on a Sub-DAO FAQ. Surfaced a couple ideas:

  • Consider: Sub-DAO’s must appoint a treasurer to be the point of contact and the person accepting responsibility for dispersing rewards to its contributors.
  • Should a Sub-DAO need to make explicit its decision-making authority or mechanism? Does that require stating a team lead(s), or could that be assumed to be whoever the multisig signers are?
  • I’ve been operating under the assumption that Stewards can call for a Sub-DAO budget revocation (e.g., if unscrupulous behavior is discovered) at any of the council meetings, but I don’t see it spelled out explicitly. Is that the intention? I think its a worthy addition.

Should be "draft". (Or a "draft".)

I think this bit needs clarifying. Foundation-based Sub-DAOs may be able to receive grants, but can’t raise venture capital, for example.

For Season 2, perhaps this language should be softened to "Sub-DAOs are encouraged to be...". My gut is to evaluate this dynamic over the course of the Season and revisit before S3.

1 Like

It seems sensible, particularly given how many rewards were delayed in S1 (including the ones I’m responsible for). Any thoughts on the requirements for this? Maybe as part of the monthly update the Sub-DAO must include how it’s rewarded it’s contributors?

Not sure on this one. What is balance between allowing for flexibility to create value vs dictating how one might run their own business i.e. in a world where Eden or P3RKS is a sub-dao but an entirely separate entity, whilst it might be reasonable for them to state up front how they’ll work beyond the being accepted/rejected, I don’t see a world where the DAO can/should dictate how they operate.

cc @BluePanda @impactbilli.eth

This is tough. If someone goes to the effort of creating an entity (cost, risk) and dedicates their time to creating something based on budget approval, should they then be at the mercy of stewards revoking that privilege at any point in time… may need to be on a case by case basis (i.e. we seek authority from the DAO to do x/y/z over this period of time. Tricky one. Very interested in thoughts here.

I don’t think we should limit this and instead see what folks come back with. Eden/P3RKS, for example, if it’s considered a Sub-DAO or Sub-DAO, wont accept any limitations on this.

cc @BluePanda @impactbilli.eth

Makes sense to me. Will amend.

1 Like

We’re struggling to align on numerous points across the DAO; looking at this image, it is even outdated as it has Socialise > Vibe for good/bad.

I think it could be healthy to ratify the DAO level OK structure inside of this proposal so we have a baseline to make Governance decisions on. Here are the latest version of the DAO OKRs, existing Stewards have already voted in favour of these here.

cc @stewards

1 Like

re: treasurer or team lead(s) questions, Sub-DAO just needs some explicit link to a DAO member. Agree they should have operating flexibility.

I don’t think its that tough. It’s a last resort, of course. Corrective action should be encouraged first, but in extreme cases, e.g., a Sub-DAO takes money and runs or actively damages the brand in month one, you’d advocate for just continuing payments for another three months?

Here I’m just referring to Sub-DAOs without their own entities, i.e. the Active (Foundation) category. As a non-profit entity, the Foundation obviously cannot raise venture funding. If you think this is clear enough/covered by the definition of Sub-DAO stages, then all good.

1 Like

Yeah, we’re aligned. I just updated the language to reflect that more specifically:

Sub-DAOs that sit outside the Foundation (have a separate legal entity) can seek other funding sources, whether or not the DAO has funded them. They are also free to provide services and form partnerships with other organisations unless otherwise agreed upon during the DDIP process.

Good point. This will put more onus on what is agreed during the proposal stage for a Sub-DAO and the resulting legal agreement between that sub-DAO and the foundation.


To clarify this. As mentioned in the proposal, Sub-DAOs that don’t have their entity operate withing the foundation’s structure and rules must sign a Contributor agreement. Sub-DAOs with their own entity will need to sign a similar agreement.

Both of these agreements will include what has been agreed, and as is always the case in contracts, there will be terminology (is in exiting contributor agreement) that states when the terms have been broken.

So long as Stewards are operating in those terms (what was agreed in the proposal, and thus included in the contract), we’re find as I understand it. This protects both sides.

1 Like