First governance solution #12
Replies: 2 comments 1 reply
-
We should probably take our time with determining who will be a member of the safe in the beginning. I’m pretty sure this topic is likely to spark heated debates. Unless we add a lot of people with a threshold requirement. I think we should think about governance first. How to upgrade the contract, how to make proposals, how to vote on proposals etc. I think a governance token might be too much, but the nice thing about a governance token is the people using the contract have a say in the governance. Who wants to take on the role of researching governance? |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I also suggest treating "DAO governance" entirely separately from "DID method governance". If we arrive at a truly decentralized solution for the DID method, no matter who deployed a smart contract used in it, it will be trusted and accepted by the community after being audited. Having an upgradeable solution that can be upgraded by a select number of people is neither secure nor decentralized. It's not a multi-sig what solves this issue. Making a parallel with the Ethereum Foundation. They suggest the new protocol updates, but the network decides whether or not to adopt the new node implementations. We cannot simply have a multi-sig deciding whether a smart contract should be updated and change the behavior of the DID method. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I am thinking whether we should already get some DAO governance solution like a Gnosis Safe which simply is a multi sig wallet that we could leverage for simple fund collection and deploying to mainnet (as it's should be a secured deployment from the beginning?).
Also I'd like to transfer over the 'did-dao.eth' if we're interested in leveraging that name.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions