#Governance Fair-Use Limitations Proposa

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

quaint osprey
#

I propose that governance no longer be allowed to be used inappropriately

No proposals to be permitted which change the utility, revdis or stats of assets owned in our ecosystem

This is not to limit feedback from participants in our ecosystem, it is instead to protect governance from being used inappropriately

Anyone having feedback or ideas on changes they think should be made to any assets in our ecosystem, whether that be changes in utility, revdis, stats or anything else of those assets should submit sed feedback or idea in #1020759212172775464

This in no way discourages Feedback!

This only ensures that Governance is not misused

Council Members are free to bring feedback they feel the Team is not addressing up to the Team to at minimum get a Team response on the topic/idea/feedback

I am proposing this now before launch so that when we have far more people in our ecosystem things dont get out of hand with inappropriate proposals and to maintain the integrity of governance for it to be in service of the DAO rather than a way for members of the DAO corrupt our governance and use it for personal gain not in the best interest of the DAO

#

This is very similar to the sentiment in my sufficiently upvoted GIP proposal https://discord.com/channels/760344898200666112/1158614270267899935 however we did not take that proposal any further due to the changes from Gov v2 to v3 which made aspects of that proposal not relevant any longer, this proposal (which I’m happy to work alongside Council to edit into a more formal form) is essentially the same proposal edited for Gov v3

Look forward to @upper elk’s and @urban temple’s input also as they helped write much of that original proposal

analog matrix
#

We have 10 people in our council. The council is highly diverse. Any of the council member can get VONC.

molten shell
#

And what you mean exactly with stats?
Like no more balancing in future?

#

And how this ensures prohibition of Governance abuse?
Can you elaborate on that?

quaint osprey
quaint osprey
# molten shell And what you mean exactly with stats? Like no more balancing in future?

To clarify further:

Balancing of assets is crucial, the game needs to be continually balanced of course, this proposal does not change that, this proposal just says “balancing changes cannot happen because someone made a proposal to make x balance change happen” but rather just means that only the Team have the power to make balancing changes and the community have the power to give their #1020759212172775464 as to what balancing they feel is required (as they do already) but no one can make a proposal to force x balance change to happen because its inappropriate

Why is it inappropriate? an example:
x unit is too strong in the current patch due to its synergies and other factors as well as that units own stats, the game is immensely interconnected and changing any single thing affects countless other things, the pro’s working on our Team that are deeply studied in all of these mechanics and manage balance changes know best how to balance an issue with x unit, but a proposal forcing x unit to be nerfed in a specific way can easily have unintended consequences, for this reason people can submit their concerns and feedback as feedback (and not proposals) and the team will utilise that feedback to decide best how to go about balancing assets

How this ensures the prohibition of Governance abuse?
I can at most say that this will limit the potential to which Governance can be abused, the only way to truly prevent any and all Governance abuse is to have no Governance and that is not a solution lol. Also as @analog matrix rightly said any council member can get a VONC, to me the VONC however is a measure of last resort and someone could easily not get a VONC making changes to assets that loads of people agree with but its dangerous territory that is imo completely outside the bounds of where governance should be involved.

quaint osprey
# analog matrix We have 10 people in our council. The council is highly diverse. Any of the coun...

VONC existing has nothing to do w this topic since non-council members can make proposals, this proposal limits the type of things that can be included in a proposal

Even if we have a council full of only solid DAO first individuals, we can currently still have tons of community proposals that propose to make changes to assets that community members own, we’ve already seen several proposals trying to make such changes which thanks to the council havent gone anywhere but the issue is also if post-launch governance is just a non-stop slew of asset altering proposals then governance looses its meaning and its just being abused and flooded with essentially useless or self serving proposals, even if such proposals come with good intentions and are even good ideas, they belong in #1020759212172775464 and not in governance regardless, plenty of great ideas have come from there and feedback is iterated on by the team all the time, it just doesnt belong in governance

#

Thoughts <@&814435151307866142>? <@&1107754780744487002>?

analog matrix
#

The role of the ICC is to vet proposals and gather community sentiment. Voting against "useless or self serving proposals" is the ICC's role.

quaint osprey
# analog matrix The role of the ICC is to vet proposals and gather community sentiment. Voting a...

Sure, but if 100% of asset altering proposals will always be shut down by ICC because its not the role of Governance, then why let our community be under the false impression that such proposals are appropriate when in fact they belong in #1020759212172775464 ?

People shouldn’t waste their time writing proposals that cant go anywhere especially when these are the most tempting types of proposals to write

Removing them as an option means 1 will truly never get through (as is ICCs job anyways but u never know right) and Governance wont be flooded with these types of proposals which by their nature cannot and should not go anywhere

#

If a certain category of proposal will never be allowed to get anywhere by a quality council, why not just disallow that category from being allowed as proposals essentially (since they really shouldnt be proposals)

austere pike
#

I don't necessarily think it's our place to tell people how to spend their time (time wasted writing proposals that will get brickwall'd) and i don't necessarily think it's our place to tell people what they should care about in general (re: what proposals they want to propose), but i see your point

#

it just feels like a slippery slope to go from open governance to fair-use limitations

quaint osprey
#

Idk to me its just a category error where just because we have a system of governance people that feel they want their feedback taken more seriously instead submit it as a proposal even if its still feedback and I just think a clearer line needs to be delineated because once the flood gates of new players open its gunna be really sucky if a council members job just becomes shutting down asset altering proposals when we could have solved this issue in advance and just clearly disallowed such proposals to begin with

#

Council Members have better things to be doing than that, like working on things that can actually go somewhere 🤷‍♀️

analog matrix
pseudo bay
gaunt veldt
#

I don't see why there should be a distinction as council members are part of the community in their personal capacity.

Also, the voting mechanism we have filters the proper proposals as it's supposed to capture the sentiments as part of the process before it goes up. And lastly, both councils ICC and IMC are there to vote on it. I hope that the community trusts in the representatives who were voted by them to rule on what's best for the DAO as a whole.

If the issue is on councils, then as jaganite mentioned, we are all subject to a VONC if many feel that any one of us is remiss in our duties. Or an alternative reflect it during the elections and not vote for those who aren't aligned with your own personal convictions

quaint osprey
pseudo bay
upper elk
#

If this proposal were passed, we wouldn't have been able to establish the Safety Pool. It kind of feels like it's solving a problem that doesn't exist. I do still think we need something in place to streamline gameplay balancing proposals, but I'm wary about the wording that's been used here.

"No proposals to be permitted which change the utility, revdis or stats of assets owned in our ecosystem"

Implementing this as its' proposed would eliminate proposals from existing which could be extremely important for the DAO.

limpid sequoia
#

I agree here there needs to be more streamlining.
I think it can be done within the current system. Through clear guidelines and expectations iterated for posting feedback and proposals. Maybe some more categories to tag and definitely some moratoriums regarding posting proposals.

I feel (hopefully) the structures in place are enough of a safeguard and as Blickter mentioned you never know what amazing thing comes up.

Maybe a middle ground is anything relating to the subjects you mentioned, bypass community vote (, not communication) , and are directly taken on by ICC, IMC and the relevant team members.

I have been in the same thinking space as you on this and have even gone so far as to believe not having any game feedback in discord would be beneficial.

Yet where is the dynamics of illuviums unique DAO and community if that happens.

I believe it can be solved with more team members like moderators or people specifically for communication within feedback ideas and proposals.

For what's it worth I understand why you want this and see it's coming from a place of wanting the best for the game and everyone.