#Governance V3 Proposal

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

calm fjord
#

Full Proposal: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PtrywW3LxiqfJqKVk9lDLJIdR5xf8A7Eypilx-8AxKc/edit

Sponsor: Kieran Warwick
Contributors: Blickter, ScrubaDubDad, missionpoole, Animositas, Caveman

Simple Summary:

This IIP outlines the introduction of Governance V3, a refined governance structure aiming to enhance decision-making efficiency, transparency, and alignment with VARA requirements. It proposes a shift from the sub-council system to a committee-based approach, the enhancement of the Illuvium Main Council (IMC), and the introduction of the Governance Improvement Processes (GIPs) and Governance Configuration Change Proposals (GCCPs).

Overview:

Governance V3 introduces committees comprising industry experts and an Illuvium Labs team member, replacing the sub-councils to provide nuanced, specialised advice to the IMC. The IMC, composed of elected and representative members, remains central in decision-making. The community council is pivotal in vetting and forwarding Illuvium Improvement proposals(IIPs) and Illuvium Configuration Change Proposals(ICCPs), ensuring community participation. GIPs/GCCPs introduce a combined voting process involving the IMC and the Community Council where governance-specific changes can be debated and voted on, where a supermajority of 7 out of 10 votes is required for approval.

Rationale:

The move to replace sub-councils with committees addresses the inefficiencies identified in Governance V2, including complexity and coordination issues. Committees promise agility and informed decision-making with their streamlined structure and focus on expertise. The Community Council ensures the community's voice is represented, and introducing GIPs/GCCPs establishes a balanced and robust mechanism for governance-related proposals.

jovial gazelle
#

Interesting proposal. I think a big hurdle will reside in finding qualified persons for the committees. We have high expectations and no compensation

bold hazel
#

Yes, this is much better. With the committees in more service to the community, this solves many of the current issues by opening the door for a more collaborative relationship.

More pay to few decision makers is better when combined with a higher capacity to receive quality feedback, imho.

edgy gorge
#

Less cooks in the Kitchen and more collaboration. I believe this to be a great move in the right direction. The core team members need to feel comfortable reaching out for feedback and council and committee members need to be knowledgeable,respectful, and responsive.

dark bolt
#

very happy to see this, should improve lots of things significantly

upper ferry
tiny gull
#

Im glad that the issue of revelvant experience and competancey is being addressed. As Illuvium grows and becomes more complex we need high calliber people in decision making places. This is not a stab at the council mambers that we have currently as I think most of them have done a good job to date but things are going to change in the future. The extended epoch time frame makes more sense imo as well as 6 months is too short. I would like to see the peer reviews done 3 times at 3 monthly intervals however. If a council member or comittee member is not working out then the comunity should have enough time to bring about a vote of no confidence earlier rather than later to avoid paying someone who is not adding value. This will help with transparency as well.

torn belfry
lusty echo
#

Awesome sauce

leaden marsh
#

I don't see the committee system working as intended honestly. But I am happy to be proven wrong. I think they should receive some compensation, even if its 500 USD a month

#

That being said I still think this is a step in the right direction, just formalising and streamlining some processes that already existed.

tiny gull
upper ferry
#

The idea is that these people have vested interest in the success of the project. I have spoken to a few people though that have expected some kind of compensation, others have asked that there be none for compliance reasons, so it is an interesting point. I’m confident that we have enough significant ILV holders that have this expertise that are willing to give us their time though, with the intention to improve their investment

leaden marsh
#

I mean that always comes with some level of risk.

lusty echo
#

Most committees are not renumerated. People give their time due to a personal interest in the success of whatever project or business they have decided to lend their expertise for.
I would also argue that people who do apply without remuneration are more committed.
For me a committee setup is more in line with the offering of expertise to help guide illuvium labs rather than taking the line of direction.

upper ferry
leaden marsh
lusty echo
# leaden marsh I mean I'm sure it'll be fine. I guess I'm just unsure how itll play out so i in...

Agreed. I was on a committee for 5 years. Lol. It was preschool, yet they all run pretty much the same.
I see the community and imc remuneration as fair, as community council, needs to 'work' engage with community and formulate responses ECT. I
IMC carries the most weight and possibly greater risk. ( I could be wrong here )

Probably my only thing is that often committee members are covered with the company/organisations insurance.

I'm not sure if that could be done for those who need it.
Instead of personal liability.

It would be good to see a use case scenario of insurance actually being activated, so people can understand the process and reasons for it.

lusty echo
tiny gull
#

Most committees aren’t necessarily responsible for being intermediaries in a multi million dollar company. Potentially even bigger. Big money requires accountability and the ability to remove people where necessary. Volunteers are wonderful and valuable but may be harder to remove or be held to account.

lusty echo
tiny gull
leaden marsh
#

Well I hate to say it but I also fear bad actors.

If I was in charge of a competing web 3 game, I might be a great candidate and might have lots to gain from Illuviums success, but I also have lots to gain from Illuviums failure

tiny gull
#

The stakes are high. I value all of the community that are involved every day with help and guidance but a committee is a bit different to just helpers

lusty echo
tiny gull
#

I understand your point of view and appreciate that you have experience. I just have my reservations

lusty echo
tiny gull
#

I am happy to be challenged on it as I may learn something

lusty echo
#

A committee is a committee, the set up are usually the same. I find most people think of early education as something that happens in your grandma's backyard.
It's highly involved. Policy often changed we had to be on top of that and restructure and seek funds and grants.
Many different stake holders.
The children, the parents, the law, the curriculum, the staff, the regulations ect.....
Having advisors rather than paid council members leaves out people just joining for 'credit' or 'profit'.
I think it's a good direction.

#

For me I see this a positive step, whereby the community will be heard, yet the balance between the Illuvium labs vision and what the community wants is in a better place.

tiny gull
#

Thankfully the Dao is nimble enough to be able to try these things out to see. But with longer epochs the ability to pivot will be slower. I trust that the community and team will strive to find the best workable solution wether it is paid or unpaid. My concern will always be around accountability, removability and transparency.

quick zenith
lusty echo
lusty echo
leaden marsh
leaden marsh
lusty echo
# tiny gull Thankfully the Dao is nimble enough to be able to try these things out to see. B...

I'd assume the same rules apply. Personally I feel a longer epoch is beneficial, the time for elections is considered. There is more time to see the implementation of any decision.
The time frames on everything should alleviate things taking too long.

I look at it like this.
Committee members have expertise. They are given a proposal or issue, they have access to all the necessary information to make an informed decision.
It can be yes this fits, no it doesn't, or what if , considering all the factors, we do such and such.

#

Or more information is needed.

#

I do agree about the times frames for personal review though. As by the second one a new epoch will be close to starting. A shorter time frame between the first and second, imo will give a better metric of any improvements or changes in behavior that have been identified. That being said a person needs time to change and prove change.

upper ferry
lusty echo
# tiny gull I am happy to be challenged on it as I may learn something

I should clarify. I was in a committee for a Community preschool. It's kind of like a DAO when I think of it.
The only way it could stay running was to have a committee. This kept the organization able to change depending on the community's needs.
The committee was open to the whole community.
So it's not a PTA set up.

lusty echo
tiny gull
boreal lily
tiny gull
calm fjord
tiny gull
torn belfry
quick zenith
dark bolt
#

Josh seems very qualified 👀

jovial gazelle
#

If the DAO can get enough qualified people without paying, that’s a big win though.

torn belfry
jovial gazelle
torn belfry
twin mauve
#

Why do we need Community Council? It looks like the ICC is IMC's assistant, doing all the dirty jobs. Why can't the IMC do everything that ICC will be doing?

#

How are we going to find the "industry experts"? We were struggling to find experts with compensation.
and how do you define "experts"?

#

overall, i like the proposal. the committee is basically subcouncil without pay.
the epoch length is good too, we dont want things to get cancelled and then reinstated every 6 months

torn belfry
twin mauve
#

im all for no pay.
but u gotta be realistic, we cant find many "experts" for the last epoch

#

whos the expert in MSC? the dj?

trail moon
twin mauve
#

scrub is a lawyer, thats good. but is he an expert in law? securities law?

#

by my count, we gonna need 12 "industry experts", how many "industry experts" do we have in the sub/council rn?

upper ferry
#

Regarding committee members I have 7 locked in for nominations and multiple others checking with their compliance teams. The mistake I made with gov v2 was not putting the effort in to recruit people

#

But who knows, maybe we find more that emerge from the community

twin mauve
twin mauve
upper ferry
twin mauve
upper ferry
#

Anyone can be nominated or nominate themselves. Nominees are required to fill out a form to confirm they do wish to participate, but it is up to the IMC to appoint them

#

There is no required team member on the IMC but it is possible

twin mauve
#

there is one ILV labs representative, might not be a team member?

#

for the record, im all for centralization. i dont believe a game studio should be decentralized

blissful osprey
#

While i understand that it's annoying for everyone to vote again every 6 months, i think epoch 8 also showed that the community can chose poor quality candidates, and sometimes even though they'd actually be the best ones running. being the least worst doesn't make you good.

Therefore i personnally dislike this approach to Gov v3 as it makes us go from a potential pay someone 6 months to hold us back, to pay that same incompetent 9 months and be held back even more.

upper ferry
twin mauve
#

4 voted and 1 from ILV labs?

upper ferry
#

Oh, nice pick up. That was not my intention

twin mauve
#

Nominate me pepe_wink

jovial gazelle
#

I am asking cause I am thinking this will be the hardest to find clear ‘experts’ in

twin mauve
#

so the IMC is electing their own advisors and dissolving sub council?

this is gov v1.5

torn belfry
peak sandal
#

Overall, I like this; it is clearly an improvement and eliminates a lot of the fluff and bureaucracy

That said:

  1. Unsure keeping committees/vestigial sub-councils is worth it
  • Obviously no pay, but seems like unnecessary structural bloat
  • Extent to which “industry experts” could fill these within the current status quo dubious
  • IMC/team likely know the best people to ask already, don’t need to formalize a ‘DMing someone for their take’ process
  1. Unclear still on where authority of team vs. governance lies
  • This was a core flaw with v2 imo, and don’t see it solved here (although ameliorated with change in sub-councils)
  • Need to be clear lines on what council can push on team, and what team can do without being gatekept
  • Personally prefer major vs. minor action distinction, where gov only has veto power on major changes + proposals are suggestions to team; system is vulnerable to populism and ‘voting yourself all the stuff’ like any democracy in current state

All in all, definite movement in the right direction and hats off for the time spent @quick zenith @upper ferry

frozen elm
# peak sandal Overall, I like this; it is clearly an improvement and eliminates a lot of the f...

Fair, I think there's a few reasons committees are important to have formally.
1)
a) NDA - Committee members can be giving the best possible advice when they have all the context, and a NDA enables that.
b) Committees can still meet, and discuss topics. Many times over the past 2 epochs, we've had scenarios where someone's mind is changed by hearing another perspective, or being made aware of some information that might have otherwise been overlooked. That dialogue is valuable in itself. Setting up those meetings informally would be more challenging than this structure.

Beyond those two points, I think just informal DMing advisors for their takes would be sufficient.

  1. There's been some effort in this realm (ex. GIP proposal) that attempt to draw clearer lines on when proposals are required and for what topics proposals are appropriate.

Currently, any major change or addition from what's already in place through the whitepaper or other proposals requires a proposal. The team doesn't need council permission to continue normal development on IL:Z, Arena or Overworld, for example, because 2 of those products are outlined in documentation, and IL:Z was explicitly passed by council. We also acknowledge that some minor changes will absolutely be necessary as part of game design and development, and unless those changes modify core functionality, a proposal isn't required.

By convention, council has generally taken an approach of consulting the team prior to putting a proposal forward, and from experience this epoch it's been apparent that tasking the team with finding solutions is a preferable way to solve identified problems.

There absolutely needs to be more done in this area to formalize those conventions, and I expect it to be something we see again over the next 6 months. Some of the challenges with formalizing things like this are the potential to limit the scope of what the DAO can change, which can be undesirable in some scenarios.

boreal lily
#

I would add that from a personal standpoint, I’ve got dozens of top tier founders, CEOs, and consultants that I work with on a regular basis at Ethlizards. However, I can’t provide details on most topics to engage them on behalf of Illuvium due to 1) NDA requirements and 2) even barring a lifting of NDA, some of them lead projects that could be considered competitors to Illuvium. We’ve got a host of genres represented in our project today and if I’m in doubt, I’m going to elect to not put the project at risk. If we have a clear structure that I know I could engage safely with some of these individuals that have been vetted by the IMC and provide actual details while asking for their advice it’s a game changer.

quick zenith
# peak sandal Overall, I like this; it is clearly an improvement and eliminates a lot of the f...

Regarding

Committees:

The net positive that I see of this system is 1) no cost to dao, 2) adds a channel for experts to give counsel with no assumption of risk, and 3) this system opens up the channel to these experts to all of IMC.

As mentioned by both Kieran and Ani, they have this network they engage with but it has always been limited to their own DMs. With this system, the same conversations are shared to the imc as a whole and can be referenced for future epoch as these discussions will be logged in our discord (presumably).

Team v Dao.

I agree that this is a source of issue surrounding this epoch. It would be too limiting if we're to follow your suggestions. However, we should establish a guideline in place that puts on notice to the community that while proposals may garner overwhelming support it is still subject to limitations on what the team can work on either by time-frame or inherent technical limitations.

twin mauve
quick zenith
# twin mauve how many hours/week these "buddy experts" are going to commit time for governanc...

I don't think you can quantify that since it would be dependent on the number of proposals that encroach upon their respective industries. Ultimately, we would need to trust the IMC to act accordingly should they feel that these committee members are not delivering. As appointed positions they serve at the pleasure of the appointing authority which is the IMC. Now bear in mind these are failsafes.

Vested interest with a common goal coupled with no assumed risk is what ultimately drives these individuals to lend their expertise to the dao through its IMC.

I do recognize the doubt cast upon the concept of committees as there is little accountability attached to their role. But I am also hopeful that the end result would be net positive.

Governance in web 3.0 isn't an exact science. I reckon we will see more version of this as we evolve as a dao and within a regulatory jurisdiction.

twin mauve
#

it will be net positive for the team becuase they will have less resistance and discord from elected sub council members

#

It's literally centralization

quick zenith
#

Proposals can come from the community which still goes through community council before its raised to imc who in turns consults with the committees. This is still essentially the same process as gov v2. You just skip the voting of subcouncils but in both versions it's ultimately IMC who decides. But here you have an added checks and balance where community also votes on governance proposals ensuring that IMC is not voting on topics that would inure to its benefit.

twin mauve
calm fjord
#

Although I don't think this, but didn't you just say you think it should be… so you if you believe this you should be happy haha

image0.jpg
twin mauve
#

i am, i believe a game studio should not be a dao, however a dao is crucial to be tax exempted.
i just want to summarize the IIP for readers who might not grasp the idea

calm fjord
#

In your opinion

twin mauve
#

do you believe the IIP is decentralization?

calm fjord
#

Yeah, elected folks on IMC, with prospals through elected folks on community council

#

It's less people which may be a “tad less” decentralised than previously, but much better than what was going on before IMO

#

But when drafting gov v2 I thought we should've gone with sub councils of 3

#

Maybe that would've helped then maybe not

twin mauve
#

i understand the move to de-decentralization.
beyond wave 2 pricing, fuel system heated debacle

#

im not sure if it's a tad less, we cut elected members by half.
and im pretty sure the vetted committee wont contribute much

#

its similar to project advisors

calm fjord
#

So scaling it back is fine IMO

#

I mean we are still 2x as decentralised as it was 6 months ago right

#

With 10 elected that vote

#

And the committees

upper ferry
# twin mauve so its basically honorary buddies with no time commitment? more than half has b...

Okay so just to be clear here, these "buddy experts" are people who have vested interested in Illuvium who I have met over the past 5 years in crypto. Investors, advisors, and founders. I don't go out on the weekend and have beers with these guys. (Not saying I wouldn't) but my point here is that they are independent individuals who I think can provide immense value to the DAO. They are all from different parts of the world (clearly not centralised) and these are just my nominees. There will be many other nominees that the council can choose from. They are also just Advisors they cannot vote on the outcome of the project, that is solely done by elected officials from the thousands of token holders who vote for them. Governance V3 is FAR from centralised, the very team building the project are at the behest of the token holders (how it was intended and how it should be). Lastly, that team is contracted by the DAO, run by the token holders, meaning if the DAO really wanted to they could contract a different entity to build the games.

If that is centralised, then gees, I don't know what to tell you.

somber wraith
#

Is there any consideration moving from a 5 person to a 7 person community council? This new model will undoubtedly increase the work load to a council that arguably has put in the most time this past epoch. @upper ferry

jovial gazelle
somber wraith
#

@boreal lily filled me in

fallen ravine
#

The membership of the council has to change when transitioning from an unregulated web 3 startup without a product, to a regulated business with 100s of millions in turnover and everything that goes along with that.

I assume that we will end up with a professional board of well paid non-executive directors, but if we need this interim step of unpaid advisors, to bridge the gap while launching the game then that’s ok by me.

Illuvium isn’t a charity. None of those unpaid ‘advisors’ are going to give up their time for nothing. They will all get something out of it that they think is valuable, it just won’t (initially) be money.

twin mauve
#

blueprints?

trail moon
#

Looking after their investment, they will do it because they have skin in the game. Capital Gains > Salary.

twin mauve
#

holding ILV token is not a requirement

trail moon
#

There are always exceptions to the rule, you may want to be involved because you are interested in the project or you want your finances to stay private.

quick zenith
twin mauve
#

we have to be realistic. They are advisors, they may or may not have financial investment in ILV. We cannot reasonably expect them to "give up their time" for ILV.
advisors are like honorary title. The advisors get fame for being advisors while we get clout for having famous advisors.

#

that's what i have observed from many web3 projects, love to be proven wrong tho

#

i actually have a IRL friend who was an advisor in a few nft projects.

#

the term is very loose i must say

#

sometimes he's a financer (launchpad), sometimes the project gave out few WLs,
sometimes they only borrow his name

leaden marsh
#

That being said if they had asked me to swing by or get on a call or whatever I would have made the time, just cause I love the space. I do think that projects underutulise advisors

#

So if it doesn't work I expect the IMC would be as much to blame

twin mauve
leaden marsh
upper ferry
quick zenith
upper ferry
#

lol

#

Roger that