Outside of changing the interest rate on cLend what should be among the first proposals of the DAO?
Delta / Dao Articles should give us a path
truth is there is no right answer to this.
we should be discussing what can we propose that will benefit the ecosystem. here are some of the things we can do.
- formally hire a core team. this means rehiring the initial dev & dev ops team, community moderators, and add new people for dev-ops, dao-ops, marketing/knowledge people and more roles depending on our specific needs! we can put a number to the budget that we allocate to each group.
core twist: we can pay the team with a loan, that eventually burns core (or we can decide to pay it, not sure if feasible just a wild idea).
- formalize a DAO structure of how it operates.
with a budget set we can formally allocate work in a way that makes sense. there are many projects that follow a specific structure with multi sigs and councils hired by the DAO, and what not. this is done in order to make sure that code, proposals & everything is carefully vetted.
some multisigs have access to the treasury, others have access to the smart contracts. id say we keep it as simple as possible as complexity can add problems and delays. so we need to think about this. and this is also something that can be done as we grow, but we should talk about this. what groups of people should be handling what?
this is important because the DAO is responsible for pushing code into the main net. and if we push unfinished unaudited code that gets hacked that’s on us. so far at least the community is set on being paranoid about the code and all of this.
besides changing the interest %, we can also look at adding different collaterals and multiple CORE lending tokens/modules that have varying APYs based on their lending rates and more! we can add ways to compound investments automatically through code. and if you are feeling bored we can just burn core.
marketing. expand the knowledge base. explain why CORE is CORE.
we keep making coreDEX.
I propose that Fanny holders get a voting multiplier… something equitable. but not crazy… anyone that holds 0.1 to .9 fanny get 1.5x… then anyone with 1.0 - 10. fanny gets 2x… and of course, there is the possibility of a Sybel … but who cares… we need to add value to Fanny holders in some way? just spitballing here… starting some dialog…
Great write up - these should indeed be top of mind to have more structure going forward
Prior to re-hiring devs with a formal income or what ever, shouldn’t we have someone that leads the direction of this DAO with a vision of our future based on our common past.
These forums shouldn’t be nick picking daily decisions.
I would imagine this same person is already entrusted within the core community and has the community’s best interest in mind, not their own. This person would then communicate / summarise options/decisions and identify requirements to push forwards efficiently.
Leadership concentrated in a single or verry small group of persons brings ineviteably trouble and conflict of interest sooner or later. But imo a peroidically changing board of hammies elected and proposed by the DAO could be worth considering.
yeah thats true, the more people are involved the more friction a system has. this is important to discuss for that reason. we must work to reduce conflicts of interest and friction.
for example we could have a simple structure where we could make a multisig composed off community members & staff (no coredev team) to administrate the funds from the treasury. While the dev multisig works on core mechanics of the overall ecosystem… the core staff wallet focuses on community grants, projects and more DAO operations. furthermore we could vote on who is in this community and we can include auditors and developers that understand the vision of the project and share the long-term interest. if we expect a high turnover rate or many voting we could even put this on a gasless platform like snapshot.
the idea is that we have an opportunity to decrease friction and decrease conflicts of interest by creating a structure that makes sense and enhances what we already have
My biggest concern is the inevitable, “madness of crowds” threat to the DAO. Would it be possible to have Revert or another appointed as a tribune of the plebs/smoothbrains with veto power over DAO yes votes? IMO this would not only prevent whale manipulation but protect new adopters from themselves and inevitable self interest.
This video has had me thinking of the future of DAOs.
Start around 6:40.