X1 metagovernance - proposed principles for token stewardship and temperature check on related topics

Please review and provide input and feedback on these proposed principles for token stewardship by EOD Tuesday 22 March. Our (Brunny and Appt Pupil) intent is to have an agreed set of principles that are to be used by Orcanauts when they are making voting decisions and taking other governance actions with tokens that are in the Orcanaut treasury or have been delegated to the Orcanauts.

I’ve also included additional information about our initial thoughts on decision making mechanisms within metagovernance and how to distribute X1 resources for this effort. It makes for a long post, but my thought is that it would be more convenient to have all of that in one place rather than in 3 different posts. If we need to break either of those into separate discussions, just let me know and we will do that.

Proposed Principles for Token Stewardship

The gov-naut pod within Orcanauts will act as good stewards for the governance of tokens representing various Web3 efforts. This includes those tokens within the treasury of Orcanaut pods, as well as tokens that have been delegated to us by others that we have agreed to take on. The following guidelines act as the general framework for decision-making as it relates to governance activities for the stewardship of these tokens:

  • The Orcanauts will draft governance proposals and make decisions in accordance with defined procedures that ensure those activities are in accordance with the values of the Orca community.

  • The Orcanauts will be inclined to support proposals with the following features:

    • Proposals that help fulfill the Web3 effort’s adventure-vision as defined by relevant governing documents of their respective organizations
    • Proposals that have a broader benefit to the crypto ecosystem as a whole (win/win/win scenarios)
    • Proposals that thoughtfully consider the pros and cons of the proposal and the proposal’s counterarguments
  • Considerations for specific types of common proposal elements:

    • For proposals that include compensation provisions, the proposal distributes compensation commensurate with the value delivered or expected as indicated by prior approved proposals within the DAO and/or comparable situations in other DAOs
    • For proposals that include investment provisions, the proposal makes investments that appear to be within the risk appetite of the DAO based on explicit treasury management guidelines and/or the history of prior investments by the DAO
    • For proposals that include smart contracts or other code, these artifacts have been analyzed by independent parties that provide credible assurance that the code will function as intended with acceptable levels of unanticipated consequences
    • For proposals that create ongoing functions or groups, these bodies have clearly defined accountabilities, member onboarding/offboarding criteria, success criteria, performance reporting requirements, and have appropriate access controls to any shared resources. Where appropriate, we will also suggest the use of Orca Protocol to aid the DAO in coordinating this work.

Metagovernance decision making

Once gov-naut has consensus on the principles for token stewardship, we will then define the metagovernance lifecycle and procedures in accordance with those principles. Since there are likely questions about how those activities will be performed, Brunny and I are also sharing our initial thoughts below on how we are thinking about decision making rights within gov-naut regarding token administration decisions and related activities. They will likely change as we work on these procedures, yet we’d also welcome your input on these as well to help us create the best approach for managing this work.

  • Each token will have a metagovernance (MG) lead and an MG backup assigned by consensus within the gov-naut pod.
  • The list of MG leads and backups for each token will be maintained by the gov-naut pod lead in an approved repository visibility to all of the Orca community.
  • The MG lead will have the authority to make decisions on voting and what advocacy actions to take (if any) for or against a given proposal, and to initiate any proposals.
  • The MG lead will provide regular updates to the Orca Community in a consistent format and location regarding the state of the Web3 effort they are stewarding tokens on behalf of.
  • The MG lead must publicize their intended votes, advocacy, and proposals to all Orcanauts within a given time frame in an approved location. This will provide sufficient time and visibility before taking action to allow for input and discussion within the Orca community.
  • The MG backup will only have the authority to perform MG lead activities when requested by the MGlead, when the MG lead has not performed an activity within the expected time frame, or the MG lead role is not currently filled.
  • Regardless of the sentiment of the rest of the community (including the MG backup and the gov-naut pod lead), the MG lead always retains the authority to perform MG lead activities while they have that assignment.
  • The MG lead and/or the MG backup may be removed from their assignment at any time by majority vote of the gov-naut pod. A replacement is then appointed by consensus of the gov-naut pod.
  • If neither an MG lead nor an MG backup is assigned for a given token, the gov-naut pod lead will perform the MG lead activities, or appoint an interim MG lead, until an MG lead or an MG backup is assigned by consensus.

Metagovernance compensation

Regarding compensation for this effort and ongoing metagovernance work, the current plan is as follows:

  • For the X1 effort, distribute the 2 ETH allocated to this effort upon completion of stages as listed below. For each stage, Brunny and Appt Pupil have agreed that they will divide the distribution evenly unless they mutually agree to a different division based on work performed for that stage

    • 0.25 ETH upon publication of the proposed principles. (this post)
    • 0.25 ETH upon acceptance by consensus of the gov-naut pod of the proposed principles . This will be a separate post in this forum and consensus means that no gov-naut pod member objects to the proposed principles in that post by the deadline either in the forum or on the next gov-naut sync meeting following its posting.
    • 0.25 ETH upon publication to this forum of the proposed lifecycle and procedures for metagovernance activities.
    • 0.25 ETH upon acceptance by consensus of the gov-naut pod of the proposed lifecycle and procedures for metagovernance activities. This will be a separate post in this forum and consensus means that no one objects to the proposed lifecycle and procedures in that post by the deadline either in the forum or on the next gov-naut sync meeting following its posting.
    • 0.25 ETH upon publication to this forum that the necessary tools, repositories, and supporting materials for metagovernance activities have been setup and are available for review by gov-naut pod members.
    • 0.25 ETH upon acceptance by consensus of the gov-naut pod that the necessary tools, repositories, and supporting materials for metagovernance activities have been setup and are ready for use. This will be a separate post in this forum and consensus means that no one objects that these resources are not ready for use by the deadline either in the forum or on the next gov-naut sync meeting following its posting.
    • 0.25 ETH upon publication to this forum of the proposed funding mechanism for the conduct of metagovernance activities and a timeline for initial onboarding of the this work for tokens in the Orcanaut treasury as well as the NounsDAO governance rights delegated to the Orcanauts by willprice (if still in effect at the time of publication).
    • 0.25 ETH upon approval of the funding mechanism for the conduct of metagovernance activities and completion of onboarding for the tokens in the Orcanaut treasury and the NounsDAO governance rights delegated to the Orcanauts by willprice (if still in effect at the time of publication).
  • Ongoing metagovernance work will be funded in accordance with the approved funding mechanism. We will likely explore some sort of a drip mechanism for metagovernance of each token that would vary based on a few key factors (amount of activity, value of the token being stewarded, complexity of proposals, others?) Changes to principles, procedures, and funding mechanisms will be managed via the governance mechanisms in place within Orca by that time.

1 Like

I can see that a lot of work went into this, so I apologize in advance for my thoughts below. I probably should have engaged sooner, but honestly am jumping back in after a couple of heavy weeks.

I might be missing some important information here, but other than the nouns nft, I’m not aware of other examples where gov-naut is responsible for token stewardship / governance in other DAOs. And without that context, I’m not really feeling like there’s a need for such detailed rules. This proposal in its current state doesn’t feel like “minimum viable structure” to me, it’s seeming more like detailed rules. I imagine the intention was to create strong accountability for the MG lead and backup roles, but one side-effect seems to be a certain level of bureaucracy.

While I agree in principle with the compensation structure, most of the activities seem to be in anticipation of a potential need, rather than responding to one directly. I wonder if instead there could be a focus on a real world plan for the noun example, and any other MG tokens we either have or will imminently have during X1.

Side note: I very much agree with the idea of compensation for preparing passed OIPs. Quite a bit of work goes into preparing temp checks, asking questions, writing the final OIP, etc., and in fact to me really is the heart of governance. I think this is especially true at this early stage in Orca’s development, and that work aligns a lot with the domain of gov-naut, from what I understand.

I appreciate the feedback @DarylEdwards.eth - while hearing this sooner would have been helpful, it’s a valid point that is worth considering. (It’d be easier to deal with if it wasn’t! :slight_smile:)

Given the general need for greater clarity as is being discussed in the feedback thread and corresponding meeting, I’m pausing my performance of any further work on this until further notice. Once we have greater clarity on the bigger picture, we can then determine if we should proceed as planned or step back and take a different approach.

1 Like

I’m absolutely open to just moving ahead and ignoring my previous comment due to its tardiness, depending on the results of the feedback thread / effort. I had a couple of very heavy weeks in other projects and definitely missed leaving timely feedback for this and several other things. Sorry about that!

I recognize that my taking in this Temp Check has been extremely tardy as well. I imagine something was posted about it gov-naut, but since I am a lot busier working now that I missed it.

I have not been here as long as others, and still feel funny around the issue of “compensation.” At the same time, I recognize, that especially while having to work to support oneself, that the time taken to actually do governance is very real, and should be explicitly valued by the community.

For the X1 case, because assets have already been granted, it is a lot easier to accept how they are being shared out. At the same time as a community not generating assets, nor creating it’s own into which value creation can be explicitly made, I feel funny on the payment for governance. I would never block a reasonable proposal like this for those reasons, but am being authentic about my response as I believe the community really needs to dialogue about these things before we get too far a long, or I fear it will become problematic.

As for Darryl’s arguments of too much too soon, I am of two minds about that as well, unfortunately. I like the work that has been done, and I think good guidelines are excellent to have. And, I really like the specific guidelines suggested. At the same time, I do think addressing specific immediate or near terms needs of the community is the best way to grow this. Especially when the work being done is expected to have some kind of remuneration.

As above, in this case, with money already granted, I don’t see it as particularly problematic, but I am not confident in the precedent it creates for moving forward as a community. Once again, it is all made more challenging by the very clear reality that the community itself does not have, and is not generating assets.

So, overall, I love the specific work, but am uncomfortable with the model of working of it presents.

1 Like