BDIP-2: Article III - Special Rules and Circumstances

Article III - Special Rules and Circumstances

This section will detail specific circumstances which are not the norm but will be indicative of potential scenarios that may occur during the entirety of the process.

Section 1. Limit on the Number of Proposals - Only three (3) proposals per month shall be considered by the Proposal Jury to ensure that the said proposals may garner the community support necessary to move forward by allowing BREED holders time to vote on each individual proposal. This limit may be subject to change.

Section 2. Rule on Simultaneous Proposals - There will not be more than three (3) Proposals running simultaneously. This ensures that the community would have an option of reading, researching and discussing each of the proposals. This amount may change due to importance, size and complexity of proposals. Simultaneous proposals should be run at the discretion of the Proposal Jury while taking into account participation numbers and community engagement in order to determine if simultaneous proposals will nullify the voting process.

Section 3. Rule on Re-Proposing Rejected Proposals - The possibility to change and re-propose repealed proposals with significant changes in structure or goal of said Proposal. Repealed proposals cannot be considered immediately and should have a 1 month interval between proposing and re-proposing. To qualify, it must link the previous proposal and clarify the changes that said proposal has gone through to be able to have a chance at reconsideration.

Section 4. Rules on Proposals that Require On-Chain Modification or DAOstitution changes - With the inherent possibility of decentralization in the near future, these will only be taken into consideration once a threshold of 40% of the total voting pool participants. Once reached, it must require majority approval of that pool in order to qualify for approval and execution.

Section 5. Rules on Prohibited Proposals - If said Proposal is affected by the clause in the DAOstitution clarifying the specification of prohibited proposals, it cannot in any circumstance negate these rules. However if there is no clause specifying the prohibition, it will be up to the Proposal Jury to issue an interpretative guideline regarding this concern to create a standard for future Jurys moving forward.


Will special rules be mentioning the suspension of the account involved in the prohibited proposal? Is it necessary?

Section 1: I like this idea, I’m looking forward to other changes in this aspect.

I agree! Limiting the number of proposals also leads to quality decisions and focused audiences. This makes voting smooth and much easy.

So in terms of submitting proposals. There’s a bit of competition since they only accept 3 proposals per month. Is it first come first serve type of scenario?

1 Like

I think it would depend on the discussion requirements. You may check Article II under Section 3 for the pre qualification detail. :+1:

We should really take note of this for the proposals. Good thing that moving forward they will be appeal rejected proposals. This gives us more chances!

It would probably depend on a pre qualification process as stated on article II. I think this is a great idea so that the voting will be limited to a certain number and will be able to focus on choosing the best proposal there is. Kudos for also giving rejected proposals to re-submit. :ok_hand:

Section 5, I think I find this fair enough. Then again, any consideration is all up to the jury. Should there be any guidelines made, I think the community should be aware so that we can all be aligned of the standards.

I think they are already doing their best to make sure that we are on the same page as them and aligned. They already made improvements and addition to what needs to be taken note of when it comes to the regulations and also with the proposals

This is really important to remember for the proposals. It’s good to know that rejected ideas will now be appealed in the future. This increases our opportunities.

Additionally, fewer suggestions mean better judgments and more targeted audiences. This facilitates and makes voting more simpler.

1 Like

Straight to the point there! Thank you! :raised_hands:

I concur! This makes it more detailed for the proposals and making sure that every proposal is reviewed thoroughly.

Very detailed. Thank you for this!

Also that! Thanks for sharing these thoughts.