We are now entering the final stage where we have slimmed the reference repo content into a Constitutional Proposal that includes the paperwork needed to establish and govern the Radix DAO.
The old GitHub repo will from now on serve the purpose as a reference library.
We are moving over to a new repo which is representing the NOW. And NOW is “nothing established yet” with a “pending founding proposal on the horizon”.
The materials we want you to review is located in the Pending folder.
The Founding Proposal is there ready for review. The DAO MI Entity creation documents are there too. And 11 framework documents has been cleaned and prepared for this single constitution proposal.
Please help us doing the final review before it is handed over for lawyer and Foundation reviews.
There’s a lot of fluff and redundancy. Responsibilities and procedures are spread all over the place across multiple documents. Some procedures don’t seem to be well-defined. These issues seem to be a consequence of LLM agent use.
The role of “Authorized Signers” doesn’t really fit the Delegate roles defined in the OA. This role seems to be mostly the same as the “Treasury signers” role in the OA but also has aspects of “Legal Signatory” plus some general administrative mandate. I think this is because the OA and the Gov framework were originally drafted independently.
The actual level of complexity of the proposed “Phase 1” Governance system really isn’t as high as I originally perceived it to be but it’s hard to get a grasp on it due to these issues. I think that most of it can be resolved by refactoring the entire thing front to back (everything in the “governance” folder) without LLM agents. Ideally, we want all responsibilities and procedures related to each role in one place and have it structured in a way that makes it easy to understand what all the different role holders are supposed to do.
We also should aim to remove most of the redundant stuff and have a single source of truth for most of it. Redundancy makes it hard to make changes: when you change a piece of information but miss some copy of it in another document, there’s a risk of leaving the whole thing in an inconsistent state.
I’m going to have a crack at it over the next couple days.
I have also made some (somewhat raw) notes on specific issues I found so far which I posted at gist.github.com/StokDokulus/b7345dd3a91b887030a07f240a52cd92
Some questions on details that aren’t clear to me:
Are Delegates supposed to be publicly KYC’d or just to (some of) the Delegates and the MI authorities? “legal-wrapper-and-representation.md” says publicly but I’m not sure if that’s intended.
Document Precedence: is the Charter supposed to have precedence over the Operating Agreement? Or is it supposed to be the other way around? The file “pending/README.md” conflicts with other documents on this.
Excellent.
Yes. The LLM’s are eager to write stuff and some like to just make bullets while others are keen to create more detailed instructions. I found the redundencies. They will be cleared out within an hour. Good catch.
Take a look at how it can be structured differently and I am happy to Assist or comment if you need my inputs.
Yes Delegates need to KYC publicly. Same with tken holders holding more than 25% of Voting Power. Any compensated member need to do KYC to the RAC only.
The precedence will be set by the Lawyer review. I expect changes to this so I it does not matter what i think here.
Edit: One option I have explored is to establish a Governance Portal for the DAO. In this portal we could create a Proposal validator and generator. We could also create a role guide where the responsibilities and policies are explained. Together with Donation addresses and ways to get in contact with RAC.
I have now made several adjustments based on your inputs. Thank you for spending time on this. Very valuable. I have taken into account your points here and from your git.
The only really hard pushback I got was on the restructuring. As it strongly recommended to keep it topics based. Not role based. A temporary role-Registry was created to give an overview of the roles with mappings to policies and rules. Use it to get fast overview.
Yeah I’m not surprised that the LLMs didn’t want to do the restructuring. It’s a large change that is hard to describe a priori. The docs are already role-based to some extent (we got a Signers doc and a RAC doc). I intend to center things around the per-role documents some more but won’t get rid of everything not tied to a role. TBH I don’t even know yet if I will succeed in making things easier this way. The only way to find out is to try.
The Role Registry is a good idea, I think it will be quite useful to me.
does a proposal for a ecosystem grant exist ? is that a budget proposal ? Or, all this proposal types are only for tools needed for the network development (wallet, xian, marketing, etc) ?
Good question.
First lets see what the AI Governor say: Yes — ecosystem grants exist, and they go through a Treasury & Budget Proposal (§4.3).
The framework defines 6 proposal types:
Type
Purpose
4.1 Constitutional
Charter changes
4.2 Governance Process
Rules/process document changes
4.3 Treasury & Budget
Funding requests, budget allocations
4.4 Executable
Technical/on-chain changes
4.5 Signaling
Non-binding sentiment
4.6 Election
DAO role selection
The charter.md (line 128) explicitly states the treasury funds two things: contributor compensation AND grants to external projects and teams building on the Radix network. Both go through §4.3 Treasury & Budget proposals.
So proposal types are not limited to network tooling. An ecosystem grant (e.g. a dApp, DeFi protocol, community project) is a perfectly valid Treasury & Budget proposal.
Endof AI.
But. You are seeing one of those “edge-cases” where the Phase1 framework has left out several policies and rather list them as “policies than need activation when we need them”
So bottom line. If you create a proposal that is a pure Grant. Then RAC will probably say we do need to activate the following policy together with the proposal in order to let it pass to voting.
Same as for Foxy’s proposal. The WorkingGroup policies and OpenSource-and-Intellectual-Property-Policy may also be activated together with that proposal in order to govern the repos and reporting.
yes. But we will line those proposal up to be ready for voting as soon as the lights are on.
I have already taken the existing proposals (Mainnet Gateway, Stokenet, Socials (Vandy) and Foxy’s XI’an) and turned them into framework compliant proposal drafts. But I have not published them yet as I want to wait until we are passed the legal review.
You have to decide if you want to wait with publishing it or run a discussion on your proposal here on RadixTalk.
Everyone need to harden their Proposal anyway in order to be compliant with the Framework. Especially on how payments can be done and who the contributors are.
I am happy to help if you need some inputs on a proposal template.
Found some more issues, posted to github again so I don’t clog this thread Comments on the draft of the Radix DAO documents - Round 4 Batch 2 · GitHub
It’s not based on the latest commit but doesn’t touch any of the stuff you changed in the last few commits. I included some comments on the election process which isn’t wrong but also not optimal right now IMO.