[DAO: QmSjXh1] DAO Governance Proposal Stages

by 0x76fb13f00cdbdd5eac8e2664cf14be791af87cb0 (Matimio)


Establish a robust and binding voting process for governance proposals.


To reduce the impact of spam and low quality proposals and increase time to assess implications and implementation pathways - each “Governance Proposal” should pass through three distinct stages. Proposals must meet specific criteria before they may be moved to the next stage. The end result is a binding governance decision.


Community “Polls” are the only mechanism at this time for the community to vote on complicated governance issues, for example, on issues surrounding voting power, fee structures, and other socio-economic dynamics. The poll category is designed to be a non-binding gauge of community perceptions, not a binding governance proposal. However, in response to community feedback, the DAO Committee has taken on the practice of implementing polls as policy, in the absence of a more formal voting mechanism.

This is problematic for three reasons. First, the poll format does not allow time for consensus building and adequate assessment of impacts and implementation pathways. Second, there are no restrictions on who can submit a community poll, leading to spam proposals and there are no voting power thresholds to ensure important governance decisions are made by a representative majority (based on voting power). Finally, because polls are non-binding, their implementation has become dependent on the DAO committee, undermining the efficacy of the DAO and confidence in our governance process.

This proposal aims to establish a three-tiered voting process that begins with a “community poll” in its current form, and ends in a binding “governance proposal.”

**Specification **

The voting process will include three tiers: Pre-Proposal Poll, Draft Proposal, and Governance Proposal. Each tier will have progressively increasing submission and passage thresholds.

Stage 1: Pre-Proposal Poll

The purpose of the Pre-Proposal Poll is to introduce a governance issue to the community, gauge community sentiment, and determine if there is enough support to move forward with the drafting of an initial proposal. Pre-Proposal Polls can only pass to the Draft Proposal stage if they have accumulated a threshold of at least 500K VP. A poll that reaches at least 500K VP and does not garner a majority of participating voting power, may still advance to the Draft Proposal stage - ensuring all issues with enough support have an initial pathway toward passage into policy.

Polls do not need to be composed in any specific form. They can be drafted in the full proposal format, or be presented as a straightforward question. Polls are currently the only option we have for governance issues that fall outside the established categories (Grants, name ban, catalysts and POIs).

  • Submission Threshold: 100 VP (i.e. equivalent to one name)
  • Passage Threshold: 500K VP
  • Voting Period: 5 Days

Stage 2: Draft Proposal

The purpose of the Draft Proposal is to present a potential policy to the community in a structured format and to formalize discussion about a proposal’s potential impacts and implementation pathways. Draft Proposals must be structured in a particular form (see Annex 1), and can only pass to the binding Governance Proposal stage with a simple majority (51%) of participating voting power with a threshold of at least 1M VP. A Draft Proposal that fails or does not reach this threshold can be amended and resubmitted one time.

  • Submission Threshold: 1,000 VP (or delegated VP)
  • Passage Threshold: 1M VP
  • Voting Period: 1 Week

Stage 3: Binding Governance Proposal

The purpose of the Governance Proposal is to formalize the passed version of a Draft Proposal into a binding governance outcome. Only established or recognized community members can submit Governance Proposals, which are only passed if they reach the needed acceptance criteria for their category. In the interim period before new voting categories have been established (and for proposals that do not have a pre-set category) a Governance Proposal must receive a simple majority (51%) of participating voting power and at least 6M VP to pass as a binding decision.

Processes and thresholds for established categories will not be changed as part of this proposal. Meaning, the process for grants, POIs, etc… will remain unchanged. Additional categories for specific types of issues, e,g, “fee structures,” will be proposed, and relevant processes and thresholds developed.

Governance Proposals must be structured in a particular form (see Annex 2).

  • Submission Threshold: 2,500 VP (or delegated VP)
  • Passage Threshold: 6M VP (or needed acceptance criteria for their category)
  • Voting Period: 2 Weeks


DAO Governance should be agile and responsive, however, at the same time tempered and deliberative. In its current form, important community decisions are being made on a week-to-week basis, and through non-binding community polls. The proposed voting framework will moderate the pace of our self-government and facilitate a detailed and deliberative process to ensure we make informed and representative decisions.

(Annex outlying Draft & Governance Proposal format provided in forum)

  • For (1): Establish a three-tiered binding Governance Proposal process
  • For (2): Modify current use of Community Polls, however, amend this proposal
  • Against: Do Nothing/Maintain current use of Community Polls
  • Invalid question/options

Vote on this proposal on the Decentraland DAO

View this proposal on Snapshot

1 Like
Annex 1: Draft Proposal Template
  • Summary: One sentence summarizing the proposal.

  • Abstract: Two to three sentence overview of the proposal, specifying its motivation and outcomes.

  • Motivation: Detailed description of the reason why the proposal is necessary/relevant, i.e. what is the problem?

  • Specification: Detailed description of the proposed policy.

  • Conclusion: Closing statement encompassing the motivation or problem, proposed solution, and its intended impact/outcome.

Annex 2: Governance Proposal Template
  • Summary: See Annex 1 Above

  • Abstract: See Annex 1 Above

  • Motivation: See Annex 1 Above

  • Specification: See Annex 1 Above

  • Impacts: Detailed assessment of potential impacts, citing your methods, data sources (if relevant), or line of reasoning used in your assessment. This could include, for example, a scenarios assessment outlining preferred (e.g. best case scenario), possible, and undesirable (what could go wrong with the policy, e.g. worst-case scenario) outcomes.

  • Implementation Pathways: Well developed description of concrete steps that can be taken to implement the proposal. This section should demonstrate consultation and communication with community members, and take into consideration DAO Committee feedback on overall technical feasibility and/or constraints.

  • Conclusion: See Annex 1 Above

1 Like

Hi all, please feel free to message me to discuss the proposal or seek clarifications. A few comments on feedback received thus far.

This statement should be followed by a period of time, which we can be determined by the community. It could be one month or quarterly for example. The aim is not to prevent an issue from being brought to the table in the future, but to still bring at least temporary resolution to a debate.

This statement refers to the submission threshold of 2,500 VP, which approximately equates to 1 LAND, 1 Name, and 400 MANA. It should also be noted that having this in place could encourage use of the vote delegation system to enable those without this amount of VP to act as a community representative and still submit a proposal.

I think this is well thought out. Thank you for this.

The only question I have is really around the following - Not all issues will require such an indepth review by the community. If implemented for everything, this would be exhausting for smaller issues that may require a DAO proposal since this process will take minimum 4 weeks to complete. How could we deal with this in your opinion? Could we maybe include something in stage 1 where we vote whether this needs an indepth process or a light process?

In any case, very well done ser.

Thank you Swiss. Appreciate your feedback and look forward to watching the video review you made.

In response to your question, first off, established processes will not change. So POIs, Grants, etc. All the pre-set procedures we have for implementing these simple and repeating decisions will stay the same.

The next stage in this process will be to develop specific categories for different types of votes we have to deal with regularly, e.g. Fee Structures, and develop processes for each one. These would in almost all cases be LESS stringent than the mechanism outlined here, as this would be a maximal process.

I like the idea of including some form of way to shorten the process during stage one, or potentially through some sort of snap vote. I think once we start working with this we will see very quickly which new categories this longer process is too arduous for, and which it is well suited for, and adapt accordingly.

I don’t really like the idea of voting 3 times for the same thing.
Isn’t the point of this proposal because voter fatigue?
If a proposal is good on the first vote and understandable.
Will it just be a copy and paste thing 3 times?

I’m having a little difficulty understanding a line in this Proposal:

“Only established or recognized community members can submit Governance Proposals”

Who decides who is recognized or established? If a proposal has made it up to stage 3 with massive community backing, is it possible that it will never be submitted as a Government Proposal because someone decided they are the only established community member? I really like this proposal except for this line. It seems to have implications I do not support for the DAO.

EDIT: Nevermind I see it was already addressed in the comments as


My understanding is this is for how we operate ourselves, Governance - and coming out with a fully fleshed draft usually doesn’t happen without community support. As it says the three steps serve a function, firstly poll community support, secondly formalize the proposal in a way that enables discussion and coming together in harmony. Lastly the most important step - make it binding.

I for one like it, it involves all of us into how we formulate our government.

Just takes too long for me if I have to vote 3 times.
Personally I only access my keys when I see a proposal that interests me.
I don’t really want to be super active on my private keys.
I will probably stop voting if this passes.

2 step proposal.

  1. Someone submits it to the dao.
  2. A formal edition is formulated in the forum with changes being approved…
  3. It’s submitted again with a longer period.

I really don’t see the point of voting for the 3rd time

I do:
There are intricacies to formalizing something that could introduce flaws and issues for the DAO. This approach is more conservative and careful, but safer and could potentially stop future disasters from happening. It allows us to think twice before we commit.

Although I do see where you are coming from - having to push through something while taking rigorous steps to approve can be a flaw in this quick twitch society.

Take this proposal for example. There are already several factors that I would like to amend in it, only moderately. If this was a draft proposal, a few things to consider:
a) You don’t have to vote on it till it really matters when it is in its final form
b) I could change the few things I want, e.g. I’m thinking 6M VP threshold might be just slightly too high for the dynamic I think is most beneficial for the DAO.
c) These features only came out through some in depth reviews and discussions that people did of the proposal, which I don’t think would have happened unless it was presented in this form.

One final item to consider, @BET, is that I think this process, in addition to some UI features we intend to build, could help encourage voter delegation, which could be great for the DCL Community as a whole, if we are able to aggregate community votes into hands that will use them well (of course always revocable easily if not used well).

A longer voting process, with more vote delegation at the same time, I think means a more robust governing structure for our community.

THAT SAID, I do VERY MUCH hear your concern about a process being too arduous. It is a serious point you raise. I hope that by having different voting categories and established processes, as we do now for POIs, Grants, etc. that this level of process will only be necessary for a minority of proposals that could have the most existential and long-term impact

THANK YOU for your feedback and engagement.

Would be good if the voting process was in-game…
Governance icon down the bottom right…

I think this is a good change overall. If if feels a bit like parliamentary procedure its probably because those types of protocols are lindy.

My only comment is we need some kind of dynamic system like this for grants, especially the higher tiers. A mechanism for a relatively low threshold (maybe 300k VP) to formally request a townhall interview with the applicants, for example. I feel like tier 6 applicants are put in a somewhat impossible situation trying to communicate their vision in one page and a link to their socials. Without a formal process for the community to get excited around an idea and comfortable with the team over a period of some time, its going to remain incredibly hard for us to commit to building something big.

DAO Governance Proposal Stages

This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.

Voting Results:

  • For (1): establish a three-tiered binding governance proposal process 98% 3,565,413 VP (32 votes)
  • For (2): modify current use of community polls, however, amend this proposal 1% 14,480 VP (4 votes)
  • Against: do nothing/maintain current use of community polls 1% 4,700 VP (3 votes)
  • Invalid question/options 0% 0 VP (0 votes)

DAO Governance Proposal Stages

This proposal has been PASSED by a DAO Committee Member (0xfe91c0c482e09600f2d1dbca10fd705bc6de60bc)

DAO Governance Proposal Stages

This proposal has been ENACTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xfe91c0c482e09600f2d1dbca10fd705bc6de60bc)

Implemented in the UI