Dissolving the Council

[graceful linden]

This is a safe space to discuss the idea of dissolving the council.
Let's talk about the pros and cons.
Tell us how you feel about the council.

[cold violet]

My 2 cents about council

[manic meadow]

What exactly are the legal/$ advantages of being set as a DAO?

[graceful linden]

Potentially corporate tax exemption

[old tiger]

just to be clear dissolving council doesn't mean we stop being a DAO...

in fact, I would argue it would bolster the DAO since ILV stakers would vote not only to elect council members and VoNC, but instead be a direct influence in ALL the proposals submitted for voting.

what I'm really curious is to know from the <@&814435151307866142> and <@&1107754780744487002> what they think is the benefit of their existence to the DAO.

[atomic vine]

It’s also possible to have a council and direct influence voting from the community at the same time. Representative voting via council members was a choice not a necessity.

At that point the main benefit for a council is to filter NDA communication and take load off the Labs team on educating for governance

I think saying that the council is irrelevant because Labs overrules them anyways is a valid argument. However, that is a problem that can be fixed without dissolving the councils, which imo is a step in the wrong direction. The council and the DAO should be holding Labs accountable and directing the decision-making. The vision for the Illuvium brand/IP should be a collaboration between Labs’ exec team/CEO and the IMC, not one-way like it feels now.

Dissolving the councils will inevitably hold Labs even less accountable to the desires of the DAO because the council is no longer there to stand up for them and make their voices heard. It’s too easy for this thing to spiral into chaos if the broader DAO has no guaranteed voice and is dependent upon Labs (those we should be holding accountable) giving us the voice.

Honestly, I think there are problems too, the current system isn’t perfect. A select few control enough vILV to decide what happens, Kieran’s (as much as I like/respect him as a leader) stranglehold on the DAO’s voice is undeniable, and the DAO bends the knee to Labs at every junction when it should be the other way around.

I don’t think dissolving the councils and stripping away those powers for the DAO solve any of those problems, in fact I think it hurts more than it helps.

[graceful linden]

labs have control of the treasury, owns the IP, codes, engines, and art assets.
idk how we can exert real power

[atomic vine]

Agreed.

Solve those problems then. The DAO should own all of it. Labs is a contractor and replaceable.

[graceful linden]

you cant without being incorporated

and why would they give it up

[atomic vine]

I’m not a lawyer, but I have pushed for the DAO to have its own legal representation for years now, so maybe it’s time for that to be worth exploring.

You are bringing up good points Jag, I’m not saying it’s easy or even that I have all of the answers, I’m just saying dissolving the councils undeniably lessens the DAOs ability to fight that fight. Right now, Labs at least has to listen to the council’s concerns and arguments, but in a really dark scenario + no council points of contact, Labs can just silence and ignore the community’s voices and do whatever they want. I’d like to think they wouldn’t do that, but why are we trying to make that easier for them?

Having an unpaid council but still having one at least protects some of those established processes in which the DAO has direct access to being heard etc.

[old tiger]

that's not true. You can implement clauses they must abide to. Like for example if they don't follow through with an approved proposal within 1 year they must pay X to all ILV stakeholders.

[atomic vine]

We can write whatever clauses we want, but what makes those clauses enforceable?

[old tiger]

same can be said for current IIPs

[atomic vine]

The difference is that the current IIPs are built on existing systems and mutual understandings.

[old tiger]

having a council or not makes no difference.

[atomic vine]

This does feel like how the walls start falling down ngl, I just don’t see a path forward with radical governance reform where any of this stays held together. It just isn’t the time for it. There’s severe existential threat to the survival of the IP right now, and this kind of reform really feels like it’s going to attract all of the wrong attention. I’m not convinced that now when the project is at its most vulnerable stage is the appropriate time to throw out tried and true governance processes.

What we have isn’t perfect and if we don’t like the people in the roles or the pay they’re receiving then address that instead lol

[old tiger]

this has nothing to do with the people...

tell me then why are you guys actually qualified to answer for the entire DAO and not let the stakeholders have their say instead?

[atomic vine]

What makes any person qualified in a representative democracy is up to the voters. What you’re describing is a voting issue, if you think those on the council aren’t qualified

[old tiger]

you want me to believe that 5-10 people deciding for the DAO is better than the entire DAO voting?

and don't forget the labs is also part of the DAO

[astral umbra]

If the 5-10 people are the correct ones, then 10000% absolutely yes.

[stiff belfry]

For most aspects in the ecosystem it is difficult to be the person in between Labs and community. This is because most changes directly affect sentiment and may in turn impact prices.

If a change is proposed by the team, I cant simply state it may happen and gain community sentiment on it. Fuel for example is a difficult topic where council is under NDA. Asking specific questions to gauge sentiment could be seen as verifying that it may happen.

There is a difference when it comes to beyond, as we can analyse and ask feedback directly from the customers and look to improve the product prior to the new release. Not everything goes the way everyone always wants, but there is a clear understanding of the community's expectations, I have been able to simply reach out and ask what people liked and hated. I gather sentiment, write up a summary and then DM the team to setup a meeting by myself or the rest of ICC as we go over the gathered information. This is more effective than the team having to message with dozens of individual community members.

From another angle, the community and team have a number of ideas that require DAO voting. Again, being put in between the two, you can get reached out to to vet a proposal prior to posting, and further advise on how a proposal process should take place.

While not perfect, both proposal processes from Rogier and Jay/Perry went incredibly smoothly. I think both community and team look back on those proposals fondly as they were clearly structured and transparently changed based on feedback. (The proposals were already very polished by the team. They were articulated well.)

So, as ICC there are still clear hiccups around gathering and implementing feedback. But the ICC from my perspective surely has a positive effect on the proposal processes as well as streamlining community representation.

Do note, that the governance is an incredibly slow body and improvements in processes take far longer than i initially envisioned.

[atomic vine]

If the entire DAO had privileged information behind NDA walls and direct and unfiltered access to talk to Labs leadership then YES it would be better for all stakeholders to have a vote. The issue is neither of those things are true or feasible.

[manic meadow]

IMC is in a better place to decide how to vote then the entire community because IMC has NDA information and a discussion about it with kieran who can give the team's perspective on the matter

[atomic vine]

What he said.

[old tiger]

and what's the advantage of council having access to NDA information instead of sharing it with the DAO and being true open development?

[stiff belfry]

The reason that beyond is much more easy to work with is because everything is so transparent. The direction does not change in between waves. Community, council and team work together towards a clear goal 🙂

[atomic vine]

Trade secrets, and the rest of the world doesn’t work that way yet. Labs is contracting deals with web2 companies that demand their privacy be respected behind NDA walls

[ionic torrent]

It's an entity that is important component of the company. The DAO raised capital, the DAO created the ILV token. The DAO owns the IP of Illuvium and the DAO is decentralised.

If it were to be dissolved, all of this would then likely transfer to labs, this is a costly endeavour so I take this topic quite seriously.

Then if crypto regulation becomes unfavourable at any point, all the shifting of ownership would put a target on the back of Labs and things get pretty messy.

[old tiger]

when did I say to dissolve the DAO sir?

[ionic torrent]

How would it be decentralised if not without a council?

[old tiger]

gosh you guys are so short sighted. Is council the DAO now?

[ionic torrent]

I don't personally believe a governance structure without a council is effective.

I don't think it'd work even slightly and so to me, dissolving the council means swapping to a standard company.

To me personally

[old tiger]

if we had stakeholders voting on proposals with vILV instead of council deciding just because would we stop being a DAO?

[atomic vine]

I agree with this in terms of functionality and effectiveness.

It sounds fine on paper but in practice it does not work.

[ionic torrent]

And I think this is doomed to fail. The NDA layer between the council and Labs is critical for information regarding proposals. Losing that is a recipe for disaster

[old tiger]

to me that layer is the recipe to disaster. Council is not qualified to handle that information.

[ionic torrent]

That's fine. I think dissolving the DAO is a better choice than dissolving the council

[atomic vine]

Then we need better councilors, not no council.

[old tiger]

I've said my piece, give voice to the people.

[ionic torrent]

And 1000 randoms on the internet with less than 10% of the relevant information is??

[atomic vine]

That’s why we are here fren, no hard feelings lol

[old tiger]

they may be randoms but they own ILV. So why shouldn't they have a saying if we're trully a DAO?=

[atomic vine]

Would you feel better if the council members didn’t have equal votes and their votes were weighted by delegated vILV?

[astral umbra]

This is the worst possible outcome. I've played games competitively on a professional or semi professional level for a good chunk of my life and I can say with certainty 99% of people have no idea what they are talking about. Giving them voting rights would be the biggest disaster ever. Better hand over everything to labs than this.

[ionic torrent]

They do have a say, they elect their representatives. If you don't feel like that's happening, let's discuss that?

I represent your thoughts every fucking week in meetings. If I'm such a failure then please vote me out, the people have the power to do that whenever they want.

[old tiger]

that's already how things work, labs decides everything in the end lol ....

[stiff belfry]

Would this require a governance manager to be hired? To ensure the proposal processes are running smoothly?

This does sound similar to ICC's job. And if someone wants to change the governance manager's role, would the governance manager write the proposal?

Id say that it would replace IMC and ICCs tasks of improving governance. And then handing off voting to the community. I guess that could make sense. A single person to reach out to when you want to have a proposal go to a vote.

[atomic vine]

Agreed, I’d rather dissolve the DAO and let Labs run everything than have a DAO without efficient rails in place.

There are legal and regulatory issues here though.

[ionic torrent]

Like decides what? Can we please be specific.

[astral umbra]

Well it's not like labs have a flawless record in decision making, but for sure it's better than something like this.

[old tiger]

IIPs approved. Not implemented. IIPs disregarded. GFPs not even on the horizon to be implemented.

[ionic torrent]

Obviously the current system has a million flaws. But I believe a purely vILV system has way more that's all.

[atomic vine]

If we think Labs has too much power then why don’t we address that issue instead of stripping away more of the DAOs oversight??

[ionic torrent]

Okay and if 'the people' approved these IIP's that would change? How???

[old tiger]

that's not the issue, IMO council does nothing for the DAO. if labs follows through with the IIPs or not that's another topic.

it's just my opinion you can try prove me wrong.

[ionic torrent]

U just said the follow through is the reason we need to dissolve the council and why the system doesn't work??

If you have a reason that vILV is better then please tell me a specific reason.

I've got one, money, and that's totally fair

[old tiger]

nah this is not about the money. Is about actually being decentralized and giving stakehodlers actual governance interaction.

[ionic torrent]

As I said, you should run for council. The best way to both understand what the council does and to enact change, is to push through to that stage.

With jaganites term limits proposals, I expect a lot of new blood to come in 🙂

[old tiger]

in my eyes you guys have no power so I'm not really interested.

[ionic torrent]

Where do U actually see a difference playing out?

Give me a recent example where the governance system broke down and vILV would have solved the problem. I am trying to understand your frustration.

[atomic vine]

Bro with all due respect why is that not the problem to solve then?

I’d endorse you for council too lol

[ionic torrent]

If the council has no power. How does a vILV vote have power?

[old tiger]

it's the same. You're right there.

[ionic torrent]

And thus I return to dissolve the DAO as a whole makes sense as a solution

[old tiger]

it's just more decentralized. If labs doesn't go through with the IIPs it's all the same.

[ionic torrent]

Look I can see how you feel that way. And the DAO does ultimately act more as an advisory board than anything else at times.

But we have rejected things Kieran has brought to us, and gone against Labs sometimes too, not often seen in public channels since it's not always in IIP form.

[old tiger]

if being a DAO doesn't mean giving voice to the community then sure just end the DAO.

[ionic torrent]

Interesting take. Let's say it is 'more decentralised' what tangible benefit does that present?

[atomic vine]

What about delegated vILV to council members? Like how Optimism does it.

[old tiger]

guys the council is elected based on a popularity contest of who has the biggest X or youtube account. Why are you more qualified than all the entire stakeholders if they had access to the information you have?

[ionic torrent]

Then let's fix that problem? I have no opposition to reform. But dissolve the council isn't it

[atomic vine]

The issue there is they don’t have access to that information and that isn’t a realistic option.

Solve that problem by reforming the voting/nomination/campaigning process.

[old tiger]

why can't they have access to that information?? I'm not talking about partnership stuff and whatnot. Why has the council seen illuvial combat and the community hasn't? Why has council seen breach and the community hasn't? Why has the council knowledge of the fuel system overhaul and the community hasn't?

[graceful linden]

IMC doesnt have access to that info too until after the deal is done or near to announcement

[graceful linden]

The DAO doesnt own the IP, labs does. im not sure if the IMC was involved in the capital raise, at least have a say on the terms.

[whole scaffold]

Lol that makes a lot more sense why council exists. Appreciate the upfront answer

[old tiger]

I think this is a very bad example, we shouldn't be comparing gamers to people who are financially invested in a project.

I challenge you guys to re-arrange the DAO for the next epoch without council and see how things go for one epoch. If it goes terrible wrong then we can just form councils again.

[astral umbra]

As it currently stands it wouldn't make any difference, except communication wise.

[broken flare]

I honestly never really saw any real benefit of having a council. Nothing personal. The funds for the council can be utilised in a much better way for Labs, be it marketing or simply more runway.

[atomic vine]

The money that pays the council doesn’t belong to labs

[old tiger]

yes your right, we need to have some mechanism to ensure IIPs are respected by the team and acted upon with some relative celerity. But besides that we have very little engagement with governance because stakeholders are only called to vote for council elections. It's always the same people involved in governance discussions.

[astral umbra]

Yeah man alot of issues to ponder on

[ionic torrent]

So now I understand your issue with the council. The council has consciously made a choice to not share those things with the community. And for each one we have a specific reason. I'd like to show breach at some point but there's a lot to say that it could damage any potential relaunch. It's not as simple as show absolutely everything to absolutely everyone and I wish it were

[old tiger]

I think you got me wrong. I have no issue with council. I just know of other web3 projects that are also a DAO and don't have a council and it works. That's all.

[ionic torrent]

Are they crypto games? Cause I think vILV voting is very very different in other industries and way more functional.

I'm honestly not convinced decentralisation works in gaming period. But I do believe that if it is to work, council is the only way.

If you want to see all the internal stuff, then make an IIP saying the council has to show everything to the community.

Would probably be super bad for the project long term, but maybe it's not idk, I'm unqualified and useless what do I know lol 😂😂

[old tiger]

hmm for games I like how the Splinterlands DAO works for example. And no this is not about seeing internal stuff although IMO I'm a true open development believer so I don't see that many benefits in gatekeeping things from the community.

you're not useless... You bring a lot of value to the ecosystem. But honestly it's not because you're part of council.

[ionic torrent]

I am familiar with splinter lands but haven't looked deep enough into it.

Honestly I'm a pretty big open development believer too and it seems like Illuvium is returning to that with the return of the leaks channel, but there's definitely pros and cons.

Honestly I think if U wrote that IIP we might approve it. To show breach for example (it's nothing too crazy yet btw and will be scrutinised heavily)

[old tiger]

nah I'm done with working for Illuvium.

[ionic torrent]

Which IIP's specifically are you saying were broken?

Honestly IIP's for a video game are pretty weird since it's all just a time horizon. They only have so many resources so they can't just drop everything to do X or Y.

[old tiger]

fuel, fuel exchange for example.

what is for example the benefit of hiding what's being done with the fuel overhaul?

[ionic torrent]

Sorry how does this break an IIP?

[old tiger]

lol there's still the bonus fuel for starters

fuel isn't even tradable token

[ionic torrent]

Was fuel meant to be tradeable in a past IIP? If so then yeah we should write an IIP to say it shouldn't be. Otherwise we will have to change it

[old tiger]

lol isn't that the councils job? And you managed to avoid my previous answer.

let me guess when the team tells IMC the MMO monetization model it'll also be gatekeeped from the community for our protection.

[sour sedge]

When I think about the council.. have all the members been more proactive or reactive during thier time..
Reducing council would more than likely be beneficial considering current the cost to the Dao + there is very little revdis happening atm

some squatted thoughts about the council moving forward;

• Reduce members to 4 + kieran
• payments to be make in X amount of tokens as appose to $$ value
• Council members to have % amount of tokens locked up during X time in council

[haughty reef]

I have been thinking a lot on this the last couple of days.

I would be good with dissolving the DAO and letting Labs take over, if it were at all possible legally and financially. I still remember when Kieran found that raise, community using the DAO stopped it and we missed out of getting the raise while token was higher. It was at that time that I lost all faith in a DAO system. I feel that in many ways the DAO has made the entire system less efficient. That is NOT a knock on our council members by the way, I think the majority through the years have really tried to do the job well. It's just the nature of the system.
I am pretty sure I am in the minority on the DAO disolving opinion though.

So, assuming we have to have a DAO how should it be represented?

It would be great to have a direct democracy and just use our wallets to vote on issues but I don't trust that system. People don't always act for the good of the project. There is far too many people who act only on a short-sighted "good for me" attitude.
We also have the issue nASTY brings up about people simply not having the knowledge needed. People have jobs, they have lives and they aren't going to be experts at everything yet we then put out the expectation they should vote on everything. It is a bad idea.

Which leads back to needing a council. If we aren't dissolving the DAO I think we do need a council but not necessarily how the council looks now.

[graceful linden]

it is actually more decentralised without a council

[astral umbra]

Yeah my thinking is somewhere along those lines too. If we are to keep the council, @crystal inlet has a good suggestion around it. Then we need some mechanism to make sure iips are actually followed by labs and another that gives them a certain veto power on things that are unrealistic, although that can be communicated through the council still. Maybe the community vilv vote can be used on things labs don't agree with imc.

It's good we finally can have a civilized discussion on these things as it was somewhat of a taboo previously.

[ionic torrent]

The voters still vote all the same, just to elect. I don't see how its more decentralised. Actually it would be more centralised without the council since the team has a majority share of tokens. By forcing them to elect council members, they have to split the voting power in more directions than if they vote on proposals in a yes/no fashion.

[old tiger]

are you talking about the tokens in treasury?

[graceful linden]

team already has 1 vote without using their vILV, they only have to vote 2 more.
it is easier to convince 4 other people you overpay than 200+ wallets

[ionic torrent]

No, the treasury doesn't vote? I just know people always comment on Kierans voting power in elections

[old tiger]

unless he has more than 50% vILV I don't get how you can say it's more centralized but ok.

[graceful linden]

Some statistics:
Epoch 9 IMC
Wallet count : 329
Total vILV : 9923
Top 5 wallets vILV : 2957 (30%)

Epoch 10 IMC
Waller count : 242
Total vILV : 7218
Top 5 wallets vILV : 1990 (27%)

@ionic torrent

[old tiger]

242 wallets participated 🤣 what a joke...

[supple elm]

And you honestly expect higher numbers voting for each proposal if we transition to a purely wallet voting governance?

[old tiger]

I don't know about that. I think the most determining factor is the game's state and the playerbase size. But yeah I think even having only 242 wallets voting it would still be better than just 5 from IMC.

[supple elm]

Ill try to anchor it on facts. Do you believe that this 242 wallets made the right decision in voting the current council? Or even the 329 wallets in epoch 9? Do you think they made the right choice?

Now whatever you think or believe if the voters voted correctly or not, imagine that same sentiment is applied to every single proposal. How would that look like?

It takes a lot to get people to vote and that was once every 6 or 9 months. Now imagine having to get the same amount or higher to vote once a month.

[old tiger]

wym it takes a lot to get people to vote? They just need to be interested in governance. Then it's a couple clicks to vote.

Who knows if the right choices would be made, but at this point are you telling me the team and the council did the right choices so far?

[graceful linden]

having many proposals is probably not a good idea for a gaming project.
remember during epoch 9 when the main objective was to make sure the team can stay focus on launch

[old tiger]

I agree that's why submitting a proposal for vote would need to have a cost associated. Like 0.1 ILV or something-

[supple elm]

You said having 200+ voters are better than having a council. I'm trying to illustrate based on past history if you believe that would be true based on the outcome of who's elected.

At the same time, my position has always been that it's easier and better to have a small well-informed group make decisions vs the masses who are not as informed due to sensitivity and confidentiality restrictions as well as expecting all or even majority of them to be making well informed decisions.

It's easy to say more would be much more representative in making decisions. Not everyone would be as interested as you and the vocal few about governance or even what direction to take.

The quiet majority are more than content to place the responsibility (and the blame) to someone else.

[old tiger]

but that's the thing. IMO the responsibility should always be on the team and not the council...

that's why they go pass free every time. They break the promises they make. They miss the deadlines they set. Etc...

[graceful linden]

just count how many passed proposal that the team has not delivered

our current system simply doesnt work

[stiff belfry]

We have had instances in previous epochs where people that got paid to vote didnt vote. 😄
That shows just how difficult it is to get people to vote no?

[old tiger]

it shows they don't care.

[graceful linden]

just imagine running a business where your investors/customers can tell you what to do 5x a month

[supple elm]

Then it's an issue of accountability. Which i totally agree. There should be key metrics and milestones that labs should adhere to and clear corresponding accountability for missing it. How that looks like at the moment? Is still something I have to think about and balance of course.

But at the same time, dissolving the council doesn't necessarily achieve that. So we need to find a different solution with accountability in mind and be conscious enough not to put too much bureaucracy and red tape to make it harder for Labs to execute things with a little bit of autonomy.

Ill address the non enforced proposals a bit in this manner. While I understand features proposals were passed but when faced with the priority of making a game that stick vs building out features that only affects the minority which one should Labs prioritize?

We all want this project to succeed and that would also entail that some things needs to be de-prioritized until we get there. That's the business side of things and a reality we all have to face in these trying times.

[final ravine]

People should not be talking about my voting power. The only person I genuinely miss in governance is @runic nexus and he's not here... I'd argue he should actually be a team member, he helped immensely, without caring about politics, just a genuine dude suggesting real change for good

[final ravine]

His point is nothing you do or say will change that. The community is over it, they want delivery, which must come from us the team.

[old tiger]

that's why I would change the whole thing. Give power to the team isntead of a council and make the whole DAO work with them. Instead of having rigid IIPs that are meant to be laws. We would simply vote on ideas. The team would always have the final say. And they could even use this as something simple as to gauge community sentiment.

[graceful linden]

yea it has been fun playing this pseudo-dao

[haughty reef]

I'd be happy with that, dissolve council, gauge sentiment through direct DAO and team have final say. Community understanding that how they vote may not be what team does.

[graceful linden]

that's how jupiter dao is doing it. they use the voting to gauge sentiment.

[supple elm]

That's the whole reason for GFPs. Giving Labs the final say still if it's viable or not.

Most iips are governance related while anything game related follows the gfp/gccp process.

[haughty reef]

It would save money, take away any risk of liability that keeps being brought up any time volunteer council is mentioned and at the end of the day the people who have all the information (the team) make the final decisions.

Does it meet the necessary legal/financial requirements?

[graceful linden]

im not a lawyer, but chat gpt says VARA doesnt require a council

[haughty reef]

Yeah, me neither, which is why I sound like a broken record. I am starting to annoy even myself.
I don't know if DAO has to make the decisions (or have the appearance of doing so) or if gauging sentiment is enough.

[supple elm]

There's no regulation on what constitutes a DAO whether there is or there isn't a council is not what's important. It's the question of is it decentralized enough. And I'll be a bit frank, if all the power is with Labs then I'm not confident we would pass that test.

[graceful linden]

Evidently all the power is with Labs

Maybe there is a reason why newer projects are likely not a DAO but foundations

[old tiger]

are you sure most IIPs are governance related? 😅

[supple elm]

Well at least the ones after the creation of Game Feature Proposals are. I think theres only been 1 successful GFP while most were rejected.

[old tiger]

there were actually 2 GFPs approved, I was part of both. And there hasn't been any more than those 2 so there hasn't been a single GFP rejected.

[supple elm]

there you go. only 2 GFPs and the rest were IIPs or ICCPs. I thought vipers was a GFP but it was an ICCP. My bad.

[old tiger]

but the IIPs are game related....

not governance. You just need to check the governance-ideas channel.

[supple elm]

Theyre game economy related which I understand why theres a confusion.

Gameplay Feature Proposals will outline a high level idea for a gameplay feature or modification. GFPs will have an open-ended timeline for implementation. Due to the nature of gameplay features, any specified element may need to be adjusted at the discretion of Illuvium Labs during development, with no limitations.

But I believe you intend to give every facet and area of decision-making to Labs. Anyway, whether council is disolved, defunded, made redundant or whatever iteration it would look like, we need to outline how we can still maintain being decentralized if we want to keep being a DAO.

That can look like delegating areas of the project completely to Labs while maintaining either a super high level oversight or earmark very little responsibility and decision making to the DAO.

We need to be clear as to the intention here and if we want to continue to be a DAO or not. Because the latter may need to dictate the risk mitigations and framework that needs to be in place.

[haughty reef]

You're absolutely right. I think a lot of the discussions around governance are putting the cart before the horse. We really have to start at step one, understanding the legal and financial ramifications of being a DAO - including what that actually means regarding DAO responsibility required - vs not being a DAO.

[trail ether]

Common sense reminder for E10 and the DAO. The Golden Rule: He who holds the GOLD, makes the RULEs. Two people custody the DAO’s entire treasury and one of them publicly stated on a pod that maybe 4 people know the true state of the treasury. All the rest of this feed is meaningless unless this is addressed by the DAO first. This DAO has never been audited, operates by zero prudent accounting disclosure standards, and never has received basic financial reporting. We are trying to solve for something with zero substance or energy if this condition does not change. @graceful linden @supple elm @ionic torrent

[ionic torrent]

I get it, I served on a council with blickter too. I'm just saying it's been a community comment for a long time.

[ionic torrent]

I like this tbh. If this is how the DAO is approached by the team I'd be onboard.

[graceful linden]

VARA requires annual 3rd party audit and quaterly internal audit.

[supple elm]

We've put vara to bed. Which is why we also lowered renumeration of IMC

[graceful linden]

Why do we keep operating like a DAO?

[trail ether]

Why are the audits not communicated to the DAO? NDA is NOT the answer. Reporting financials and putting in prudent controls over the treasury with at least double approval (a countersigned) of all expenditures by an ELECTED IMC member would ask ILV to operate like every other functional organization on the planet. This elementary basic stuff.

[trail ether]

Given the Binance delisting of the ILV/BTC pair and luggis.eth reporting, I urge the IMC to release any financial reports that can supply some measure of confidence immediately. If we have audits from a credible source they should be leveraged to sure up confidence. The DAO sticking its head in the sand and doing nothing is like self-mutilation.

[graceful linden]

I'm not aware if there is an audit done.

[supple elm]

Cause that was the original premise. Or are you asking that we SHOULDNT continue operating as a DAO

[astral umbra]

There are young soldiers dying for an opportunity to do the same but are not given a chance and feel the system is rigged.

[graceful linden]

I'm trying to rationalize it. Currently, we dont have a plan to get incorporated as a DAO, so why are we still operating like a DAO?
if the answer is "just in case" some regulatory body somewhere probe into this project, dont you think we should do the audits?

[old tiger]

you answered it already.

the team should learn a thing or two with other projects about what open development actually means. If they're going to behave like traditional web2 gaming companies then let's just stop with this DAO charade so they can develop wtv the fuck they want in closed doors without community feedback and launch the product whenever it's done.

[trail ether]

So ILV never performed these standards? Wonder why…There are a host of really good reasons why VARA would require such minimalist accounting standards.