KIP Draft: Blitz Governance

Background

We are on the precipice of pushing through KIP-0. While this milestone is noteworthy in the history of this DAO it is important to continue to iterate further on our governance model to close consensus as fast as possible. Currently, the lifecycle of a proposal is as follows, crowd consensus onto Sophon consensus and finally token holder consensus. Token holder consensus currently takes 7 days to finalize with the absence of significant objections. My proposal aims to reduce this time spent on Token holder consensus based on community participation.

Proposal

The inspiration for this proposal is from traditional governance in the US wherein the senate legislation is debated through something called a filibuster. In the event, most of the seat is from the same party they are considered to have a filibuster-proof majority meaning that legislature proposed by the party cannot be debated and senators are forced to vote if imposed on. This approach could be applied to token holder consensus where if the on-chain data suggest that most historical governance participants have participated and there is a negligible or absent objection then the KIP can be expedited to 36h after the “filibuster-proof majority” has been recognized with 0% of the votes objecting or a 72h time horizon with <1% objections. This proposal would only take effect after 5 KIP’s have been passed to be able to gauge who participates in governance and how many tokens are used in voting.

Limitations

The limitation of this proposal stems from potential objections not being voiced due to the reduced time for token holder consensus. While this risk is always going to be present regardless of the timeframe used, the flexible time buffer of 36-72h depending on objections and the need for majority consensus to already be present limits the prevalence of situations like these.

1 Like

Right now the main problem I see with the governance is the lack of participation from the community.
I am not even sure if there are 10-12 people in total out of thousands or more of hodlers and community members. This means that people are not used to the idea of checking the kips so they an provide feedback and need to be remembered constantly.

Personally I would create some sort of emergency voting for hot or zero-grade proposals that need an outcome as soon as possible, for example in case of a hack or a partnership that can not wait a long response from us.

The way I imagine this working is:
Someone is creating a KIP in the special section called “Priority Proposals” and then the sophons approve it or move it back to regular section that we have right now. If it is approved then it acts as a priority proposal with special rules and if it is not approved it goes as usual.

These priority kips could have much shorter timeframes for voting and debating like 48 hours or such.

3 Likes

Agree with Priority Proposals. There are many that come to mind which need to be acted much faster than the regular 7 day window we have.

2 Likes

I disagree. I think the 7days are important for holders that less regularly check on us (me myself, I am also more on a once/twice per week schedule, rather than many of you)

1 Like

The time reduction would only trigger once voting saturation has been recognized as a means to expedite the consensus process. In a situation, most voters would have already voted and the chance for an objection to the proposal is extremely low.

Another thing that could be done is when core members submit KIP it could forgo crowd consensus and go straight to siphon consensus and then apparent consensus as a means to lower to lifetime an idea has to spend in governance limbo.

1 Like