Governance Revamp - Hybrid System
SUMMARY
This governance proposal aims to restructure Decentraland DAO’s decision-making processes by introducing a multi-faceted approach to governance. This approach combines using the current token-weighted system for certain types of proposals while also integrating a token & reputation-weighted strategy for other proposals.
ABSTRACT
This proposal seeks to distribute decision-making power equitably among stakeholders while fostering community engagement and accountability. This will be done by combining token-weighted mechanisms with reputation-based signaling and introducing a body of temporary councils composed of recognized community members for more critical proposals, like larger grant allocations.
MOTIVATION
Ultimately, the approach a DAO chooses for its VP structure will depend on its specific goals and the type of decisions it needs to make at any particular stage of its governance process. Different approaches to VP distribution have benefits and drawbacks that may vary between DAOs, depending on their needs and goals.
Currently, Decentraland DAO could best be described as a stake-weighted voting system because voting power (VP) is directly associated with the amount of stake that a user has (e.g. 1 VP = 1 MANA). VP is accrued through LAND ownership (1 LAND = 2,000 VP), MANA holdings (1 MANA = 1 VP), and Name ownership (1 Name = 100 VP). While there have been some changes to Decentraland’s VP system since the DAOs formation, all modifications remain within the stake-weighted voting modality.
The question of VP distribution has continuously received community scrutiny, as large, single-wallet votes – whales – were able to pass measures and grants when there was not broad community consensus, or in the face of broad opposition. In other instances, a vote was made at the last minute, “flipping” the outcome of a vote and leaving no time for community mobilization or response.
INTRODUCING REPUTATION TO THE GOVERNANCE SYSTEM
This approach advocates for the allocation of distinct weight and significance to various forms of involvement in the DAO’s decision-making processes, such as voting, facilitating discussions, crafting successful proposals, publishing wearables, and more. Through this methodology, participants have the opportunity to cultivate a reputation within the organization based on their active engagement history.
Leveraging the badges system, this reputation framework will serve as a mechanism to either restrict access to specific types of proposals or unlock additional benefits within the organization, thereby acknowledging and empowering the community’s contributions to the decision-making process.
Reputation functions as a form of incentive and as a way to safeguard DAO’s long-term interests and its treasury. As this could be seen as initially intangible when specific statuses correlate with increased decision-making influence, reputation emerges as a key factor within the governance system. Participants with a higher reputation may have more influence over decisions, reflecting a level of trust built over time. Using reputation as a criterion for membership or access to certain ‘privileges’ can help filter out bad actors and ensure that participants with a positive track record have a greater say in governance.
A HYBRID SYSTEM
A hybrid system that combines the existing stake-weighted approach with a reputation system could offers several benefits:
- Safeguards the interests of digital assets and NFT holders while maintaining their relevance and importance in decision-making
- Allows participants regardless of their token holdings, to earn influence through demonstrated expertise and dedication
- Participants holding influence through both stake and reputation are incentivized to act accountable in the long-term interest of the platform, mitigating risks of short-term manipulation.
- The flexibility of a combined system brings more scalability and modular growth for the governance system and allows tailored decision-making approaches to different contexts, enhancing overall efficiency and effectiveness of governance processes within the decentralized organization.
RANDOM FACTOR
Introducing a random factor into selection processes can significantly enhance the transparency, fairness, and diversity of viewpoints within the governance system. By utilizing raffles to determine the composition of different groups that will enhance the decision making process, the risk of manipulation or bias is minimized, fostering a transparent process where every eligible participant has an equal chance of selection. These raffles will be organized by assembling pools of candidates who meet specific skill criteria and possess a certain level of reputation. The pool of applicants and the random selection process will ensure that only suitable candidates are chosen through an unbiased mechanism.
SPECIFICATION
Governance system and decentralized decision-making mechanisms will be set up in three different layers. Badges that will be taken into consideration, though not exclusively, for the following purposes include:
Existing
-
Land OWNER
-
Metaverse Studios
-
Decentraland Legislator
-
Wearable Creator (Mid Tier)
Potential (not limited to)
-
Grantee (Grant finished, no revocations)
-
Working Group Facilitator
-
Platform Contributor (GitHub merged PR and/or Canny request implemented by Foundation).
-
Ecosystem Service Provider (Bid winner, no revocations)
To access all levels of governance, possessing a NAME will be a fundamental requirement aimed at partially mitigating potential sybil attacks, and to demonstrate a certain degree of “commitment” through an initial investment in DCL assets.
1- Token Weighted Governance + NAME
Maintain the current token-weighted voting power (VP) system for all general DAO proposals and projects funded by the DAO below USD50K (Lower Tier).
General Binding Governance Proposals will now be “Constitutional Binding Governance Proposals” (CBP). CBPs will represent all binding decisions adopted by the DAO through the three-staged governance process that are not related to protocol smart-contract updates.
2- Token Weighted + NAME and/or Reputation (Badges)
Introduce “Protocol Governance Binding Proposal” (PGB) as a new type of proposal for voting on smart contract protocol updates (MarketPlace, Wearables, Catalysts, LAND), requiring holders to possess a NAME and certain badges, indicating their contributions to the platform.
[Governance Process]
- PGBs will adhere to the standard three-stage governance process. However, when advancing a draft proposal to a binding status, if it pertains to a protocol update, the author must indicate this option. Conversely, if a Binding Governance Proposal suggests a smart contract update without being identified as such, it will be deemed invalid.
- Community members holding a NAME and X badge(s) will have the opportunity to submit and cast their votes on these proposals utilizing their entire voting power.
3- Grants Council - 4 possible approachs
For projects funded by the DAO +USD50K (Upper Tier). Includes Bidding and Tendering framework.
OPTION 1
- Establish a temporary council of 9-12 members to approve/reject grants.
- Applicants must hold a NAME and specific badges, have a certain tenure in the platform, at least 6-months participating in the DAO, compliant with the Code of Ethics. Members will be selected through a random raffle process. → RANDOM FACTOR.
- Every 6 months, new applications are accepted, and a new raffle is conducted. Council members in active service may seek to renew their mandate for only one consecutive term.
- Within the 9-12 Council slots, there will be a specified quota allocated to each group of members based on their distinct skills and reputation.
- Removal: Failing to cast a vote results in immediate removal. Members can also be removed with a 2/3 vote from the rest of the council.
- Compensation: Each member of the temporary council will receive USD X for each assessment and vote cast, with this compensation covering gas fees (if on-chain voting is implemented). → NOT MANDATORY, OPEN TO DISCUSSION
[Governance Process]
- For submitting funding requests (Higher Tier), proposals are initially presented in the forum Governance section for community and council feedback. After a 5-day feedback period, proposals undergo final adjustments (3-5 days) before formal submission. As a last step, the requester will submit a proposal for a voting with a 7-day duration or a variable voting period based on the scale and impact of the proposal, where each council member will vote (1 representative, 1 vote).
OPTION 2
- Establish a body -pool- of ~20 members based on reputation and a random selection of 5 members for each Grant review/voting, to approve/reject fund allocations.
- Applicants must hold a NAME, be MANA holders, hold specific badges, have a certain tenure in the platform, at least 6-months participating in the DAO, be compliant with the Code of Ethics, and be selected through a random raffle process. → RANDOM FACTOR.
- Within the 20 Council slots, there will be a specified quota allocated to each group of members based on their distinct skills and reputation.
- For each funds allocation voting, a raffle will be conducted and 5 council members from the full body will be selected to vote based on the funds request category.
- Removal: Failing to cast a vote results in immediate removal. Members can be removed with a 2/3 vote from the rest of the council.
- Compensation: Each member of the temporary council will receive USD X for each assessment and vote cast, with compensation covering gas fees. → NOT MANDATORY, OPEN TO DISCUSSION
[Governance Process]
- For submitting funding requests (Higher Tier), proposals are initially presented in the forum Governance section for community and council feedback. After a 5-day feedback period, proposals undergo final adjustments (3-5 days) before formal submission. As a last step, the requester will submit a proposal for a voting with a 7-day duration or a variable voting period based on the scale and impact of the proposal, where each one of the 5 raffled council members will vote (1 representative, 1 vote).
OPTION 3
No matter how Council members are selected, the Council reviews, assesses and votes, but the result will be to decide if there will be an open voting for the community (filtering-gatekeeping). This will mean that the Council will be just another instance before the community voting with a BINDING outcome.
OPTION 4
Either OPTION 1 or OPTION 2, but a voting in the DAO will run in parallel. The community voting result will have a weight of 1 VOTE (could be more heavy weighted, X votes) in the Council voting.
IMPACTS
- Empowerment of active contributors through reputation-based incentives.
- Enhanced transparency, fairness and accountability through community feedback mechanisms and introducing the random factor.
- Promotion of platform development and innovation through targeted and strategic grant allocations.
- Sybil attack mitigation.
IMPLEMENTATION PATHWAYS
- Governance Squad will develop the technical infrastructure necessary to integrate reputation-based incentives into the governance system.
- Define which, contributions, badges and tiers will allow community members to apply for the council
- Establish clear criteria and procedures for council member selection, rotation, and removal.
- Review compensation options for council members, considering $X per review + assessment + vote. → NOT MANDATORY, OPEN TO DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
This governance proposal outlines a comprehensive framework for enhancing decision-making processes within the Decentraland DAO. Combining a token-weighted mechanism with reputation-based incentives and establishing a rotating Council, will enable us to create a governance structure that is both inclusive and effective in driving the platform’s development forward. We believe that these changes will foster greater community engagement, transparency, fairness, and accountability, ultimately contributing to the long-term success of the DAO and Decentraland ecosystem as a whole.