Sophon decision criteria: RFC

The prior post outlined a set of proposed revisions to Sophons’ role in the new governance process. The revisions mention “Sophon decision criteria” meant to guide Sophon decision-making at two points in the process:

  1. The decision of whether to accept a KIP for Sophon review once it has been posted to the forum
  2. Arriving at a consensus recommendation as Sophons, published prior to tokenholder voting on Snapshot

For the ore visually inclined, the two decisions fall inside the red circle:

While both of these decisions share an underlying requirement of mission alignment, they are also different decisions with different objectives. This implies that we should articulate different criteria for each.

What follows is a set of suggested decision criteria for each of the decisions. These are a first pass at establishing these criteria, and are constructed to strike a balance between establishing meaningful guardrails on the one hand, and creating overly restrictive documentation requirements on the other. Most important - they will only improve with more eyes on them and suggestions, so please bring your comments to Gov Workshop, or share them in the comments below. We can only move forward with the new process if decisions like these are as sharp as possible, so the more voices here, the better.

The first pass attempt at decision criteria follow below.

First decision: KIP Screening Criteria

This first decision is intended to screen out proposals that are potentially fatal to the ongoing viability of the protocol and of the DAO at an early stage in the process. It is not meant to render an opinion on the quality of the KIP but rather to as a risk control. The primary criterion for this decision is:

  1. DAO welfare. Does this proposal present a potential risk to the DAO’s ongoing viability?
  2. Protocol health. Does this proposal have the potential to harm Rook’s protocol that is not sufficiently addressed in the KIP?
  3. Mission alignment. Does this proposal conflict with Rook’s mission and values?

Only KIPs that are fatally flawed on at least one of these criteria can be rejected at this stage. Any decision by the Sophons to stop a KIP from progressing to Sophon review will be accompanied by a rationale explaining that decision.

Second Decision: Sophon KIP Evaluation Criteria

The second decision is more complex, and involves a deeper evaluation of each KIP across a wide range of factors determined in part by the nature of the KIP. Taking this variation into account, the Sophons should at a minimum consider:

  1. Mission alignment. Is this proposal aligned with Rook’s mission, purpose and values? Has the author sufficiently demonstrated that alignment in the proposal?
  2. DAO and ecosystem welfare. Has this KIP sufficiently argued its potential benefits to the Rook DAO and its ecosystem, meaning, are the stated potential benefits in the proposal convincing?
  3. Protocol and product advances. If relevant, does this protocol provide sufficient advances to Rook’s technological and/or product capabilities?
  4. Feasibility. Is the specification feasible in terms of execution? Are the resource requirements for execution reasonable?
  5. Treasury investments. Are the stated potential benefits and risks of the investment convincing?
1 Like