Section 1. Discussion Requirement. All proposals must be sufficiently discussed by the community.
Section 2. Proponents; Right to Submit a Proposal. A “proponent” shall refer to one who
Controls such amount of sBREED, either through staking or delegation, that will put
him/her within the top one hundred (100) list of persons in terms of sBREED voting
power, provided that, sBREED that has been delegated away will not be included in the
computation of that particular person’s voting power; or
Is a member of the Core Team.
Only a proponent shall be allowed to submit a proposal under the Governance Proposal
Section 3. Initial Proposal. A proposal shall be deemed submitted if a thread is created in the DAO Forums by a proponent indicating it to be as the official proposal thread. The proposal thread shall, at a minimum, have the following information and content:
Name or names of the proponent-members;
Sufficient description of the suggested course of action or inaction;
Proposed budget for proposals that require the use of funds from the treasury;
Timeline of the implementation of the project; and
Such other relevant and pertinent information that will aid the decision of the community as to such a proposal.
Section 4. Pre-Qualification. Once a proposal is deemed submitted, the Proposal Jury shall thereafter screen and evaluate the same for pre-qualification. The Proposal Jury shall determine (1) whether the initial proposal violates any provision, rule or guideline of the DAOstitution and (2) whether there has been enough discussion on the proposal to meet the discussion requirement under Section 1 of this Article.
Violation of the DAOstitution. If, upon evaluation, the proposal is deemed to be violative of any provision, rule or guideline of the DAOstitution, the Proposal Jury shall vote to reject the said proposal.
Failure to meet the discussion requirement. If, upon evaluation, the
proposal is deemed by the Proposal Jury to have failed to meet the discussion requirement, the discussion period for the proposal shall be extended by fourteen (14) days (“extension period”). If after the lapse of the extension period, the proposal is still deemed to have failed to garner sufficient discussion as to satisfy the discussion requirement, the Proposal Jury may vote to reject the said proposal within three (3) days after the end of the extension period.
Exclusive criteria. Except for these two criteria, the Proposal Jury shall not base any decision to allow or prevent pre-qualification of a proposal due to other factors like substantive merit or personal bias.
Evaluation. The Proposal Jury shall have three (3) days to evaluate whether to pre-qualify the proposal from the time it is submitted.
Approval. An initial proposal shall be deemed to be pre-qualified once it garners a majority vote of approval from the Proposal Jury.
Liberality as to form. As much as possible, no proposal shall be rejected solely due to minor deviation or non-compliance with the form required under Section 3 of this Article.
Publication of decisions. All rulings and decisions of the Proposal Jury
in rejecting a proposal shall be provided in written form and published in the appropriate places that will ensure its visibility such as, but not limited to, a dedicated section in the DAO Forums.
Section 5. Referendum. Once pre-qualified, the proposal will be submitted to a community
vote on Snapshot through a referendum in Snapshot which shall run for a period of seven (7)
days. A proposal shall be deemed approved if it garners a majority of all the valid votes cast in
the referendum by the end of the seven-day period. One sBREED shall be equivalent to one
vote. Delegation of votes shall be allowed.
I’m with you! And, yes you’re right. There should be a specific clause for plagiarism included in the ethics guidelines. That would be one of the main job of jury members, to sift through twin proposals.
This is a valid concern. Budget proposals require one to fully understand the industry and what is needed. If this is shared publicly, others could copy it and use it for their own proposals or gains. Maybe only the total amount should be shared in the thread. But the details should only be shared privately with the Proposal Jury.
Agreed. It’s up to the Proposal Jury on what information they’ll reveal to the public and what’s not to reveal. Plagiarism is prevalent nowadays so they must only provide the necessary information that will at least, satisfy the curiosity of the public.
This is something I would consider a quite detailed structure of the proposal system. BreederDAO has been thorough in choosing their team members and this structure proves their dedication in keeping the project successful in the market.
This is a great proposal to the section here. The team will definitely consider this when enacting the proposal process. We believe in acting according to the safety of our members in all parts of the process.
Great point, we at breederdao value transparency and honesty first and foremost
and we are willing to let the community have an eye into the treasury and the proposed budgets that we will take from said treasury for the use of the token itself. As valuable members of our community, It is your sole right to be able to understand where your money is going and how it will benefit you and the future of our development.
We understand where you are coming from, however, regardless we want you to be secure in understanding where these finances are going. That being said, we’d like to understand what are your thoughts on the idea of transparency with regards to the treasury fund.
Hi, lenamarie! If I may join this conversation, theoretically, transparency brings up confidence and increase trust. But at the same time it could also create a culture of “To Good To Be True”. How are we supposed to create a borderline between stating facts and looking too flawless? Did I make sense?
If I may add, do we really think disclosing this kind of information can be an effective or ineffective way for our community too? I mean we have to take into consideration that others may not feel secured when disclosing important matters like this. Nevertheless, I believe the Proposal Jury will do great on their job when choosing proposals in the future.
I agree on this one. Transparency should be present in the governance because that’s one way of building up trust. However, as far as ‘proposed budget’ is concerned, I think there should be a fine line between the info that can be shown publicly and those that should remain confidential. After all, proposals can be seen publicly here and these are at risk of plagiarism. Maybe the overall prize can be shared to the public but the breakdown should be deemed confidential. I’m certain that the jury will be able to come up with a better resolution regarding this one
How do you suggest we avoid plagiarism in terms of proposed budgets? Or is it just a risk we need to take as we’re a DAO?
On the other hand, for on-going projects, I think there should be transparency, but I wonder if copycats can use it against us Maybe it should only be viewable by Members and not publicly via Discourse.