Regularly scheduled “office hours” would help to keep folks on the same page.
Bi-weekly should suffice.
Depends on the overall stance on the governance program by the community (and the future of it). In my opinion self voting is a form of conflict of interest, therefore unethical. You basically put your own personal or financial interest above everything else. That’s not democratic and may be even harmful to the program or blockchain it’s future.
If it were to me, we’d have a code of conduct similar to Optimism (as an example). Where they have a passage that outlines rules against self-dealing in the Optimism community, including mandatory disclosure of conflicts of interest and prohibiting delegates from voting on their own proposals. Monitoring for self-dealing is done through random ballot sampling to maintain governance transparency and fairness. You can read it here: Code of Conduct - 📌 Policies and Templates - Optimism Collective
Something similar for xGov would be a good start to state what is legal and illegal. Because as long as it’s not written out, it is some sort of grey area where it’s decided by the individual itself whether it’s allowed (rather than the community and program decides)
1 Like
In the next gen xGov platform its quite clearly stated that the xGovs which will be in that small committee cannot vote on milestones on their projects…
In the general xGov vote, i think it is not applicable as it would mean that people have to disclose the accounts that they own.
Also there is another legal issue. Is legal entity A able to vote for legal entity B proposals if it consists of lets say 5% same shareholders? 20%, 50%, 100% ? What if this percentage changes over the time?
Point 1: that would be being a good xGovernor following the code of conduct. If not, then breaking it with potential consequences. The fact that blockchain is materially anonymous thereby difficult to 100% enforce it, shouldn’t prevent us to strive to better/more inclusive.
Point 2: yep, clearly a conflict of interest.
I think a code of conduct that covers conflicts of interest disclosure and avoidance could be helpful even if it doesn’t have much in the way of teeth because the community could still use it as a record of norms and use social pressures to mitigate some bad behavior. With time we may be able to devise actual on-chain mechanisms to enforce it.
2 Likes
I am also in favor for this.
Crowdfunding is a good idea. AF funding is also a good idea. Both are worth promoting side by side.
@fisherman.algo - crowdfunding can work independently to xgov.
Terms and conditions can be set for Crowdfunding. like you said, Xgovs must deploy x amount per quarter of their own algo… etc., this makes sense. I don’t think we should link crowdfunding to xgov.
Secondly crowdfunding is basically random joes becoming investors of a project - Can these investors be co owners of the projects based on their investments or thats a bit too complicated? If I am putting my own funds, I expect a return. On the other hand, the AF job is to grow the ecosystem and not expect any return. AF Algos are given out of good faith. My personal algos would be given in expectation of something in return… Can it be tweaked somehow so crowdfunders get a share or some equity etc in the project? Is it possible for this to work via smart contracts?
That’s why crowdfunding can be a different entity all together. Keep it separate from Xgov.
This way real business savvy entrepreneurs will enter. If they see a good idea, they will fund it. And they will get something in return if the project succeeds. And if an investor has skin in the game, they will use all their networks to try to promote and make the project flourish.
Create a smart contract for crowdfunding, incentivize crowdfunders (investors), and you will get more money flowing into this ecosystem side by side with what the AF is doing.
Everybody wins this way.
And I don’t know what everybody’s stance and view is on Web 3 - But just because we are in a decentralized space, doesn’t mean everything is suppose to be free for everyone. That’s hallucination. Every decentralized Dapp that is out there should be self sustainable and to be self sustainable, you need to charge users for using it. No free lunch.
Like look at Pera - I use pera to swap tokens instead of sending my coins to Ku coin or opening up Tinyman to make a swap. I pay pera that extra fee for my own convenience. I don’t mind paying Pera a bit extra per swap. The’ve built a solid, a super solid amazing Dapp. If your project is solid and can compete with Traditional web 2 apps - people will pay.
People will pay for self sovereignty too in the future. Its a matter of when, not if.