#GOV V4

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

near summit
#

Some months ago i started gathering thoughts of how i would love to see the governance structure changed but than gave up on it and never actually put a lot of effort in it due to different reasons.
I saw that ICC starts reshaping Governance structure with the latest Thread (Governance Updates 1-4) and it gave somewhat of motivation to write a serious draft of a possible governance structure change.
now before i start actually putting some work into it i would love to get some feedback if the general Idea is good, bad, crazy or whatever and maybe get some additional inputs from community members who think it could be a good change.

Keep in mind, this is just some thoughts gathered so i don't forget them. There's many questions unanswered and everything in the document isn't finalized at all.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRynhjDWn4FGkdadJDI4YK_X439Aq7xmd46mcTqkvJI2ONEuYm0TTS5CaILtHIJb-IgDjHLJRlNegoK/pub

calm dust
#

Just to clarify, this would replace the ICC right?

near summit
#

Yes

calm dust
#

I'm open to the idea, the council has talked about how to get game-specific representation better involved and has floated around the concept of committees that represent certain groups etc.

I actually think in hindsight the sub-council concept of people serving in specific areas of expertise was closer to the mark than what we have now, but it too had its flaws.

One of the bigger deterrents to a system as is portrayed here is the costs associated with that many councilors, but there are obviously ways around that or get creative with any compensation involved.

I would also strongly suggest the IMC is kept alive (to address the line in your draft about the possibility of dissolving it and rolling it up under Labs).

tldr, like the idea, curious to see what others think of it, I think there's room for improvement in how the ICC works (or get rid of it altogether and go with something as you've laid out here).

#

So I guess with that said, we also could structure it like committees instead, and have the IMC, ICC (or whatever sub-council) and then committees made up of subject-matter-experts from each game that represent the interests of the players within their game of expertise to the ICC/IMC.

near summit
#

IMC is for sure an interesting idea, but to fullfil it's purpose outlined in my idea but also as it is right now, it needs a specific amount of insights and also power.
If it doesn't get that, it's in my opinion useless and or dangerous to have that instance at all... and from what i read in discord publicly available it doesn't have that at the moment.

Salary is for sure a topic which has to be outlined aswell and should be in my opinion according to the workload and responsibilities. Likely the total salary of the councils will be outlined lower than it is now but could increase as the ecosystem grows. A growth in ecosystem could end up in higher workload for each council but also increase the "union" itself, since there is supposed to be a Union-council for each game/subsystem

calm dust
#

Another lever to pull regarding compensation is adding lock/vesting to compensation earned in $ILV so it isn’t sell pressure and reiterates the long term commitment to the ecosystem.

#

It does seem like the IMC has its hands tied in many circumstances or at least doesn’t have the oversight it needs to fully do its job, but I think this is a solvable problem and getting rid of the IMC altogether would in my opinion be a huge step in the wrong direction for a DAO.

smoky frigate
#

Looks cool and interesting. One of the concerns would be saturating all of these councils with good enough candidates so that they are actually productive. If we can, and they all work together between each other and with labs, it will be a massive improvement over the current structure. Maybe this can be implemented once the games start to pop off, as right now there are mostly investors and casual players within the community.

Also, live debates between the nominees can be considered as this is the easiest way to filter who knows what without cgpt.

unkempt crown
#

Went over it a bit. Might need a second reading for sure but what strikes me is that theres too many sub councils again. Its like Gov v2 (2.0) unless im reading the union thing wrong.

I dont think we should over complicate things with more and more councils. We should simplify it and focus on identifying what can IMC do in terms of duties and responsibilities as well as what are the oversight functions.

We outsourced to Labs a lot of the functions and responsibilities. We need to find the balance and making it clear both to Labs and to the DAO what can IMC do without having to put on more bureaucracy and red tape.

untold knot
#

@near summit Hi!

I really like your idea. I’ve fully reviewed your document—everything is clear, minimalistic, and straight to the point.

Just a small clarification regarding the "Power Score" of Illuvials.

I think the total sum of attributes isn't always an objective parameter.

For example, I had a Tier 4, Stage 2 snake with all attributes at 5, except attack speed, which was at 4. Then, I got another snake with all attributes at 5, but movement speed at 0.
I decided to burn the first one and level up the second from scratch.

Naturally, its Power Score will be lower due to the lower total sum of attributes, but we both understand that it will actually be much stronger in practice rather than just on paper.

And could you please clarify how exactly the elections will be conducted?

Who will make the decisions? Will it be the same as before, where those with more tokens have more voting power? Or will the gaming community decide?

untold knot
raven sage
# near summit Some months ago i started gathering thoughts of how i would love to see the gove...

I could support something along these lines as I do see having requirements for council members important.

However If you are on IMC you should fulfil the requirements for the Arena(doesn't have to be top 1% but in the top 50%) and general councils(They should have assets in every part of our ecosystem).

Then the union councils are more like focus groups. They should have access to the most up to date game designs and progress as well as builds before they are released to public. At this point, I would push for union councils(Focus groups) to have more oversight on the exact direction of the game. Even down to smaller game mechanics and systems. Labs team members would then select Nominees that met the threshold to represent the union councils

harsh girder
#

i like the additional responsibilities of the imc, something that i expected for the owner (if) of this project has access to.

im not sure we want the multi sub councils gov again. it was bloated and messy

raven sage
untold knot
untold knot
smoky frigate
untold knot
smoky frigate
untold knot
# smoky frigate Yes what about it?

Lack of knowledge in other languages does not imply a lack of knowledge about our project.
This is in continuation of your point about using live debates.

smoky frigate
near summit
#

appreciate all the feedback and seems like many would be open to a possible change, so i guess i take some time to sort the stuff, flesh it out a bit more and add missing stuff to get it to the stage of a rough draft where it can be discussed further.

Just to clarify some intentions i had. (which obviously could change during the proposal crafting process)

  • The Union should consist of 5 individuals at the moment; 1 individual for each game/subsystem, so it will stay for now at the same size as ICC is. The goal is to have an expert in every game/subsystem so a vote of the Union will have the best requirements to cast an informed vote. (Union will grow in individuals with each game/subsystem being added)
  • All game related stuff should be voted purely by union and all overarching decisions should be voted purely by IMC. This would make on one hand the whole proposal process faster and also ensure that proposals are voted by people who should inherit the knowledge required to vote on those proposals. (the weighted votes are in there for the same reason)
  • The powersystem i would like to see being created by labs and those should also act as Collections one wants to fill, similar to beyond but over the whole IP
wise temple
#

The idea of dividing the ICC into game-specific groups is interesting, but I wouldn't create an entire sub-council for it.

Instead, I would have the ICC include one representative for each game, responsible for maintaining direct communication with that game's community. This representative would be required to write IIPs based on community input, rather than having community members submit IIPs themselves.

  • Arena ICC Member
  • Overworld ICC Member
  • Zero ICC Member
  • Beyond ICC Member
  • General ICC Member overseeing the all ICC activities and being the bridge with IMC.

The IMC would have its members divided into specific areas of expertise:

  • Economy IMC Member
  • Marketing IMC Member
  • Gaming IMC Member
  • Engineering/Technical IMC Member
  • Kieran as the lead IMC member and the bridge between the team and the council.
smoky frigate
wise temple
smoky frigate
harsh girder
near summit
near summit
near summit
near summit
#

almost

smoky frigate
near summit
#

but actually... not... since kieran is also still part of the team 😄

#

maybe i have a brain twist... suffering headache all morning 😄

smoky frigate
#

Depends on from which side you are looking at it haha I guess it's both

unkempt crown
#

I dont think we can field enough "qualified" nominees to fit each game-specific position.

The implementation of this doesnt seem feasible.

wise temple
harsh girder
#

and also, it hasnt included token chat, which is the true pvp