i have feeling algorand needs to solve other issues first…
I strongly disagree. Current priority should be to setup a system for everyone to make proposal to be put to vote. Let me explain why:
-
Results of G2 showed a wide support for this. But it should be done the right way (which I think xGov is not per se).
-
After we are all able to make proposals, it will be easier to address all the other issues because multiple people could actually work on those and propose concrete solutions.
-
Based on the quality, provided reasoning, and (lack of) engagement in public discussions for the previous Governance proposals from the Foundation, it seems they are preoccupied with other things to lead the Governance.
-
The need for wider community to be able to make proposals is also clearly seen in the thread by the amount of community responses vs. the ones from the Foundation. Until a system for considering proposals by the public is in place, we will be seeing what is happening in the thread. A lot of good ideas, but unstructured and without concrete proposals.
You write too much
The topics are complex. If we do not precisely express our ideas, we will get such incomplete proposals as are the ones made by the Foundation.
If you see concrete suggestions on how I could explain my ideas in a more succinct manner, please feel free to reach out and we can work together on those.
I have not found a mention about how should be governance implemented.
I did not address this simply because it has already been solved. We have a voting system in place. I could agree that it might not be perfect and better solutions can be made. But that is not a priority, since even if you come up with a better system than we have now, you cannot get others to consider it since you cannot put up a proposal to vote.
Fruther, I believe that the solution I suggest on how to decide which proposals can be put to a vote, is in its essence independent of the actual voting procedure.
In my opinion the crucial thing is the delegation of voting power.
I would prefer not to endorse delegation of voting power since it inherently makes the system more centralized. The main reason I believe in Algorand is its elegant solution to the consensus - PPoS, which enables direct participation.
Delegation of voting power will/is already spinning up naturally because some do not want the hassle associated with taking decisions. That is fine, but it should not be endorsed at the core of the Governance.
If you want any DAO to work efficiently, you must have possibility to ask any time any question.
I agree that current Governance mechanism is very rigid in this regard. But this is again a separate topic.
And DAO must not go bankcrupt with making the decisions onchain, which means the cost efficiency must be good for dao as well its users.
I believe long-term Governance will not be rewarded. It will simply be a voluntary civic responsibility. The costs of voting are anyhow minimal - just a transaction.
Currently, it is a good thing for the participation in Governance to be rewarded because it engages more people. This will not be necessary once the community grows. It is also a part of tokenomics, but again a completely separate topic.
Am i the only one here who thinks that DAO should make more decision than 1 per quarter?
I completely agree that 1 decision per quarter is inefficient. Again, the issues is firstly in a lack of proposals because not enough people have the option to work on those. How to solve this, should be our top priority.