Article III - Immutable Fundamental Rules
Section 1. Overview. The immutable fundamental rules herein shall be the permanent and unchangeable rules of BreederDAO which may not be modified or amended by any proposals.
Section 2. Binding Force. In staking BREED or acquiring and possessing sBREED tokens, the
member agrees to be bound and abide by the terms of the DAOstitution.
Section 3. DAOstitution Amendments. As an exception to the voting requirement under the
Governance Proposal System, any change or modification in any section or provision of the
DAOstitution shall only pass upon a majority of all outstanding tokens held by members.
Whereas, addition of an immutable rule to the DAOstitution shall only pass upon a vote of two-
thirds (2/3) of all outstanding tokens held by members. No amendment of the sections, clause,
or provisions of the immutable fundamental rules and guidelines under Article III shall be
Section 4. Prohibited Proposals. The following proposals shall be prohibited
- Proposals that are unlawful or criminal in nature or have a reasonable
tendency to be characterized as such.
- Proposals to exclude or permanently ban a member or group of members without undergoing the applicable disciplinary process.
- Proposals that are prejudicial to the DAO or which are designed to render the DAO ineffective or inutile.
- Proposals to amend any section, clause or provision of the immutable fundamental rules enumerated under Article III hereof.
Fair enough. I also agree with the conditions on banning proposals. Hoping for proposals coming to be fair and fun!
It is deemed to be fair if judged properly. But, how can you say so if there is no specific clause in the DAO constitution on what is/what are prohibited?
I think it is more helpful for the proponents to have some sort of specific guide/s and thru that “guide”, DAO court members can quote reference supporting their judgement.
You got a point there. Although in general it is indeed fair but then again providing specific points and reference would be more helpful to further understand why they came up that judgement.
True. Though the context of this article is a bit broad, they could still possibly improve this to make it a bit more specific.
Having these conditions could still be modified. Overall, the one stated here are fair and suitable.
Well, with respect to its Section 4.d, where it states amendments to any section, clause or provision of the fundamental rules is prohibited; may I suggest that the team could come up with an implementing rules and regulations that will deal specifically with each clause.
These fundamental rules seem reasonable, but I hope that you’ll come up with additional specific regulations particularly with the prohibited proposals.
Rules indicated seems to be fair for me. With regards to Section 4, which is prohibiting proposals. I do wish they would provide specific details on why that certain proposal was prohibited because some rules are a bit broad.
This is greatly appreciated but as much as we want to detail every case this might end up limiting the movements within the community.
Essentially Section 4 does not allow proposals that are unlawful in nature, bans members without any process, invalidates the DAO and its purpose, or amends the DAOstitution without a majority vote.
Hope this clarifies!
I support this. We don’t want everyone having second thoughts about sharing insightful suggestions here. Let’s make this a healthy grounds for innovative ideas!
This will be shared over seperate from the DAOstitution articles
It’s very apparent that these rules only aim to regulate the community interactions rather than “limit” member’s ideas. Rules are made to be followed anyway, so yeah, these rules seem fair and just.
Rules are established for a purpose, and it’s always best to come down on the side of caution. I certainly agree with it and I am looking forward to see the article’s enhancements and modifications on its details…
Looking forward to more readings in order to further understand this new undertaking by the project. Kudos!
I support this since this we will feel secured if there are fundamental rules that are being established on certain projects. plus we can avoid scams.
Wow! Thank you for noticing. I’m looking forward to that update!
How can Section 1, consider a 100% immutability of fundamental rules. There might come a time, where circumstances permit us to consider a change from a foundational grassroot level ?
I agree maybe we can try to be more specific when it comes to section 4 about the prohibited proposals.
Should section 4 be allowed to be amended without a timeline? just thinking out loud, do we want it to be more specific or do we want it written in a way that it would be easier to categorize motions that would fall under prohibited proposals?
Glad we’re clarified about this. Thanks!