[RFC] - Wonderland Governance Framework Amendment

Governance Archive [RFC] Request for Comment
,
1

[RFC] - Wonderland Governance Framework Amendment



Name

[RFC] - Wonderland Governance Framework Amendment

Scope

Provide better timeframes, transparency and implement a better way to vote on treasury management proposals.

Link to previous [DAO Discussion]

[DAO Discussion] Wonderland Governance Framework Amendment
[DAO Discussion] Implement Treasury Management Proposals

Objective

This proposal aims at improving the transparency and efficiency of the current governance process by introducing minimum requirements and reducing existent timeframes.

High Level Overview

  • Reduce and implement minimum timeframes.
  • Provides minimum requirements for steps before a proposal is voted.
  • Implement Treasury Management Proposals (TMP)

Low Level Details

Minimum requirements

Governance Stage Min. Timeframe Quorum Views Votes
DAO Discussion 2 days 20 users 300 60%
Request for Comments 3 days 40 users 500 60%
Wonderland Improvement Proposal 3 days N / A N / A N / A
WIP Vote 4 days 5k TIME N/A 50%
Treasury Management Proposal N/A N/A N/A 50%
TMP Vote 4 days 5k TIME N/A 50%

The number of users require for the minimum requirement met excludes users involved in the proposal. Comments, likes and/or poll votes can be used towards the quorum.

Polls and official votes should always have an option to maintain the status quo.

In consultation with the delegated official1 , elected officials may bypass the DAO Discussion step when submitting a proposal. If the proposal goes against or in a different direction than an already voted proposal, the DAO Discussion should not be skipped.

RFCs, WIPs and TMPs are to be reviewed and approved by the delegated official1 to ensure the proposals are clear, coherent and DAO guidelines followed. When submitted by the delegated official1 they must be reviewed by another elected official for approval.

Minimum requirements can be adjusted at the discretion of the delegated official1 following an informal discussion with the community. The poll should be announced and last at least 4 days.

1Until voted otherwise, forum moderators and administrators will act as the delegated officials enforcing the framework.

Treasury Management Proposal (TMP)

A TMP is a request to alter specific parameters regarding the management of the treasury, renew previously approved budgets, or assist treasury personnel with decision making processes when required by previous governance such as WIP 14 and the current Treasury Allocation Proposal.

These proposals are to be formally voted on by the DAO. However, unlike a WIP, the TMP does not need to go through the complete governance process. A TMP should be posted by an elected official and should explain the reason for the TMP as well as the available options proposed to the DAO.

Due to a TMP bypassing the regular governance process, there needs to be certain limits to prevent the mismanagement of the treasury funds by rushing the process.

  • A TMP should not be used to modify terms of previously voted WIP that are not directly related to treasury management or does not allow that flexibility (e.g. liquid staking, redemption, $SIFU investment, etc).

  • A TMP should not be used for seed investments or buying specific tokens.

    • A TMP could be used to ask the DAO to make a specific asset a strategic asset without voting on how much should be bought.

  • In a situation where there is a conflict of interest, the regular governance process should be followed to ensure due diligence is done.

If it is unclear whether a certain treasury management situation can be dealt with using a TMP, the guidelines should be clarified and the regular governance process used.

Requirements of the implementation of the proposal:

There are limited requirements to implement this proposal.

Current voting tool’s (Snapshot) settings will have to be adjusted. Moderators and elected officials will need to adjust to the new requirements.

  • Yes, amend framework
  • Yes, but see my comment(s) below
  • Make No Changes
0 voters

Since an RFC is a “work in progress” Proposal, not all of these points need to be filled out from the beginning. They can be added over time as the RFC evolves into a mature Proposal.

6 Likes
2

Very needed to improve our DAO process, ship it 🫡

6 Likes
3

Let’s make this happen asap, future of WL is at stake and we don’t have time to rebase!

4 Likes
4

All I have to say,
Let’s do it @NalX

5 Likes
5

I love this. I just wish we had more participants! 🥹

5 Likes
6

Will add a note to add that a TMP could be used if the purchase meets another guideline requirements.

4 Likes
7

Another day, another amazing improvement to the DAO. This is a great initiative and a much needed change. While our governance framework has gotten us this far, and I appreciate its utility, this is a natural progression to a more thorough system that should help make the process much smoother and clearer. As Bam said- Ship It!

6 Likes
8

We could make a dynamic system that calculates numbers based on forum activity. There’s probably some backend numbers we can use.
Static numbers may need to be changed at peak activity times or in bear markets like now, when DeFi activity is low. I feel it would be far more relevant than hard cap numbers.

6 Likes
9

Yup, this might have the way we go to make it easy. The only issues is that it might be harder to follow what is the number if it updates constantly… Might have to make it semi auto or something :thinking:

6 Likes
10

You could average the last month’s participants, for example. It might make more sense if you look at the actual numbers.

See what happens to the proposals from last month based on the numbers from two months ago. Once that makes sense, do it for three months ago. If it works again you have your formula and you don’t have to “hard code” any numbers ever again. A system which gonna work always no matter what.

5 Likes
11

Will definitely consider this. Something similar was used to get the proposed numbers, but things change fast, this would add more flexibility than the current way to update things.

Could keep a post so people can see when the numbers are updated.

3 Likes
12

After posting the last four proposals, there might be a problem with the minimum requirements proposed.

While these seems to be achievable (e.g. [RFC] - Community Rewards Proposal), we need to take into account that each proposal were announced on Discord and Twitter by the official Wonderland accounts.

This is something that may be possible for proposals coming from the team, but it may not always be possible for proposals coming from the community depending on the number of proposals coming through or the quality of the proposals.

As such, we may need to have a more dynamic system like proposed by @Batman. Proposals that are properly promoted should easily meet the requirements, where others may need some extra effort to do so. The forum does have quite a few reports in terms of statistics that may be leveraged to provide a more transparent system to the community without having fixed minimum requirements.

That being said, keep in mind that participation on the forum is not a perfect representation of the actual participation of the DAO members. Snapshot votes have sometimes been 10 to 20x the number of votes compared to the forum poll. Now while that may include person with multiple wallets it is hard to imagine each forum member having that amount of wallets or more each.

5 Likes
13

Good way to streamline the voting procedures!

3 Likes
14

Here’s a participation boost to get this thing out of RFC :slight_smile:

1 Like
16

Topic has been moved to WIP:
https://dao.wonderland.money/t/wip-25-wonderland-governance-framework-amendment/19855

1 Like