[DAO Discussion] Strengthen our Foundation

[DAO Discussion] Strengthen our Foundation


Add quarterly AMM sessions; amend the proposal process; define a mission statement; and provide consistent information through different services.

Community Interest:

  • I would like to see a formal proposal
  • I am not interested in seeing more
0 voters

High Level Details:

To ensure the success of Volta and address problems before they arise, it is important to strengthen our foundation. This proposal aims to add elements and make amendments to ensure higher transparency and increase the trust in the project.

Provide Low Level Details:

Rather than making separate proposals, this is a collection of four important elements that can benefit Volta and can be easily implemented without much cost. If some of the elements are liked while others aren’t, the proposal can always be split.

Quarterly AMA
For some time, there has been a growing disconnect between team members and holders. While some questions are answered extremely quickly by certain staff, some important ones go unanswered. This is not because someone doesn’t respond, but it’s usually not the right person from the correct department, resulting in some holders losing faith. Additionally, being asked the same questions repeatedly is counterproductive.

To bridge the disconnect between holders and the Volta team and ensure the right information is conveyed from the correct department, a quarterly AMA will be held. This proposal doesn’t define the exact way the AMA sessions are conducted but should follow the following framework:

  • Quarterly sessions will be held on the first Sunday after the quarterly treasury report has been published.
  • At least one member from each department should be present to answer questions directed towards them. If unable to attend, questions to that department will be answered at the earliest opportunity.
  • Questions should be allowed to be asked in advance.
  • During the sessions, questions should be answered, and new questions should be taken if time allows.
  • If the session becomes too long and not all previous questions have been answered, they will be subsequently addressed as soons as possible.
  • All questions and answers should be saved and archived for anyone to access.
  • A summary of the questions and answers, with the most importance based on the team’s opinion, should be compiled and posted on appropriate channels such as Discord, Twitter, and the forum.

Amendment to Proposals

The current system allows anyone with 1% of Volta tokens to submit a proposal as a snapshot without the need for prior discussion. This has proven problematic, as seen with the passage of CMP 3, which was posted without substantial discussion, leading to a misunderstanding of its intent and implementation.

To ensure increased visibility and better understanding of future proposals, this amendment introduces a 7-day rule. Proposals must be present on the forum for at least 6 days before being posted on the 7th day onwards.

This proposal does not establish a standard for writing proposals.

Small edits, such as grammatical corrections or changes in wording without altering the meaning, will not affect the rule. However, any significant changes that modify the original proposal’s meaning will trigger the rule until no such alterations occur. An example of such an edit to trigger the rule is if a proposal to buy $1 of BTC is changed to $2 of BTC. Six more days will need to pass before a snapshot can be posted.

Any snapshots posted without following the 7-day rule shall be considered null and void.

Mission Statement

While the most obvious answer to what Volta does is to make money, the goals of Volta should be clearer for all current holders to understand exactly what does Volta do, and for new investors to know what they are joining. On Debank, such a statement can be found: “Volta Club is a DAO actively pursuing alpha opportunities across networks, with a fixed token supply and strategic buybacks to align project success with token value, benefiting all holders.” However, it cannot be found on Discord or the website.

If the above-mentioned statement is the official one, it will be added across all official communication channels. Additionally, there should be a further explanation with a bit more detail on the official mission statement.


The supply of Volta tokens is available on the website. However, other trackers such as CMC and CoinGecko either do not track it or are widely inaccurate. While this may not be a significant issue for existing holders, it can cause confusion and unnecessary questions for potential holders.

To ensure information about Volta, such as the Total Supply and the above-mentioned Mission Statement, is readily available, the team will be responsible for continuously updating the most used and well-known tracker websites, wherever possible.

It will be up to the team to decide which service is worth updating.

Now vs The Future

While it has been stated that the goal is to benefit existing holders without necessarily capital from new investors, sooner or later, a ceiling will be reached. The treasury doesn’t have unlimited funds to keep doing buybacks forever, and as the price increases, it will become more and more difficult to sustain.

To resolve such problems and allow the influx of new ideas and discussions to further Volta as a protocol, it is important to start thinking and working to attract new holders. While this proposal doesn’t suggest marketing or anything similar, it aims to utilize existing services to make existing information clearer and easily accessible for all.

Regarding Quarterly AMAs, historically, we don’t get much questions that mods are unable to answer or require specific answers from the team members. I don’t know if things have changed now, but AMAs tend to have very low participation rates and I don’t really see much requests for one.

Also, I feel that this “disconnect between team and holders” narrative is largely echoed by a very small group of the same people. The team is elected by the DAO, and can be fired by the DAO. Personally, I think that if most holders genuinely feel such a strong misalignment with the management team they’ve elected, then it could be a better option to replace the team with one that can serve their needs better.

The current team is formed from community members who have stepped up to serve the protocol voluntarily through times of crisis, even before they were formally elected into their positions. I would argue, based on my own experience dealing with these folks internally, that they all have the holders’ benefit as a priority.


Quarterly AMA
I’m not against the idea of AMAs :thinking: Like hyper mentioned, it’s true that in the past some haven’t been super active, but I believe users appreciated their existence and those that couldn’t make it, the recordings. It think it could be more beneficial to take those as an opportunity to give a status update on the protocol/things behind the scene more than having the AMA part as the main focus. This way they would serve a purpose regardless of the amount of questions.

Amendment to Proposals
I think there’s benefits to some rest time. Is 7 day enough or too much ? Hard to say. I think it might be on the longer side. Forum is set to close topic after 7 days if there is no comments. Maybe that make sense to align with it or maybe that means its too long since it considers a topic dead, but it could be discussed. I think 5 could be reasonable.

The I would definitely reduce the retrigger. I think 3 should be more than enough otherwise proposal could be there for so long based on a small change. Too long might also discourage OP from accepting certain feedback and just leaving it as is to not delay things further.


What if they decide they aren’t worth it ? Not much of a proposal if it doesn’t bound anyone to anything. Given that the team already reaches out to those website to have things updated, I’m not sure this part means much. Sometimes the delay also seems to be on the CMC/CG side of things and not the team. So it’s hard to enforce a proposal on something they might not have control over.

While I agree that there aren’t many questions that can’t be answered unless done by a specific team member, adding AMAs would be perfect for this. AMAs can address those questions, and it won’t be very time-consuming. The proposal aims for AMAs once each quarter, specifically after the treasury report, which is the most anticipated event for Volta. This will allow for any misunderstandings to be resolved as soon as possible.

While more updates are good, they aren’t mutually exclusive to AMAs, so why not have both? When an update is posted, it can lead to more questions which AMAs can help answer.

Amendment to Proposals
I do agree that 7 days with a 7-day extension seems too much, so perhaps the following would be best: 5 days needed to pass in order to post a snapshot. Any significant changes that modify the original proposal’s meaning will add an additional 2 days each time.

The idea isn’t to bind the team to specific services but to know that this is being done to the best of their ability. With Bam’s reply, ‘Just a clarification: We update trackers such as CMC and Gecko. It’s up to them to update the info, though,’ it shows it’s already done. However, as I didn’t know it is done, others may be unaware as well. Keeping this as non-binding can serve as acknowledgment of this happening behind the scenes.

The response above is a part of my reply to you.

Stating that a small part is responsible for the narrative of disconnect shouldn’t be disregarded. Most governance, such as ending migration, has been handled by a small group of people. For something to be said, in most cases, it isn’t baseless. Unlike people who have missed the migrations and would naturally be angry, most holders simply want to ensure their holdings grow in value, and the team that is being paid is doing their job. Additionally, when people are vocal about problems and they keep being repeated, it draws more individuals into that group.

AMAs won’t solve this problem entirely, as there are always people who find a problem even if it isn’t there. However, we can look at it from a customer service perspective. If a customer isn’t happy with the response of staff, they would ask to speak to a manager. In most cases, the manager will give the same help, but that position of authority helps. AMAs with all departments will let people know they will be heard and will get the right response from the right person.

While the turnout at the $time of the AMA might be low, there will still be questions asked live and a lot more asked prior that can be answered.

I’m not sure if you are aware of the AMA turnouts historically, but it’s pretty abysmal. I would suggest just holding one first to see if it is still the same, then based on the turnout and effectiveness, decide whether we want to make this a regularly scheduled thing. Can just get Alice to organise and doesn’t require a proposal for this.

Amendment to Proposals

Interesting how the example only references CMP 3 being posted without substantial discussion. Have all other CMP, to date, then met this proposed amendment (ensuring increased visibility and substantial discussion)?
I agree with the intent here … to ensure “increased visibility” by making sure there is siffucient time for substantial discussion. If there is not “substantial discussion” (need to establish a parameter for this) then it should not go to snapshot. This would prevent a few LARGE holders creating proposals in their interest and pushing them through.

This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.