Governance — Phase 1.5

Hello, Unifam!

With twelve weeks since the initial launch of the Governance Phase 1 post, and with the approval of the CUIP-04 — Governance Council Installation, we believe that now is the perfect time for us to iterate and supplement. Upfront, we acknowledge that building a self-governing community is a monumental undertaking — one that we hope we are all willing to experience together. Our hope is for our structure to evolve as we learn and grow together as a community.

Let’s now look at the second iteration of the Governance structure!

We’ll continue to use two different platforms for all Governance-related activities — our forum and Snapshot. Apart from these two, we’ll also start using KryptoSign for the intermediary steps needed to check the community’s position (ex. the Temperature Checks, Motion of No Confidence or Governance Council Nominations). This is temporary as we seek to find better forum integration. As before, we’ll be using the forum for all the discussions necessary to bring proposals to Snapshot for voting.

We acknowledge that Governance systems based on the results of votes on Snapshot require human input to be implemented. This usually requires

1. an operations team that will coordinate the implementation of the proposal, and
2. contributors or development teams who will perform the work needed to implement the content of the proposal.

During the early stages of building our DAO, the Laguna Games team will perform the task of coordinating with the contributors or development teams who’d come forward with proposals through our Governance Facilitator.

Upfront, we’d also like to address two limitations in the governance system. While holding sRBW allows users to write and vote on proposals, the DAO/sRBW holders cannot, however, volunteer the work of another contributor or development team without their consent nor can the DAO/sRBW holders request the execution of proposal that may go against foregoing laws or existing legal obligations.

Let’s now go through the steps one by one. Here’s an overview of the process.

IDEAS

Just like before, this is still how we birth all Crypto Unicorns Improvement Proposals! Posts in this section of our forum may still be written in free form by any member of the community.

We’ve noticed that the Ideas section tends to be more active than the Draft Proposal section of our forum. To help community members move forward in the proposal process, we’d like to propose the following changes:

• A post in the Ideas section will stay open for as long as the community is actively engaging in the discussion.
• A post will automatically be closed when no new activities are recorded for 5 consecutive days.
• A representative from Laguna Games (known as the Facilitator) will contact authors of posts with consistent active positive engagement and encourage them to write their proposals in the Draft Proposal section of the forum. It’s important to note that any assistance we will provide in writing the proposal is not an endorsement of the idea nor the proposal. We believe that in the beginning, it is our duty to guide our unicorn frens forward.
• Ideas may be tagged with the following categories: Game Features, Ecosystem Fund Grants, DAO Operations, Just for Fun.

DRAFT PROPOSAL

Similar to the initial iteration, when an idea is ready to be proposed, a Draft Proposal should be written. We still ask that people use the same format, so all proposals have a similar structure. We also believe that this format allows for transparency, which will help everyone make an informed decision.

Prescribed format for improvement proposals:

• Name — Brief Name and CUIP-00X “Tag”
• Summary — Two or three sentences describing the proposal.
• Motivation — Describe to the community why this proposal is necessary.
• Details — Dive into the specifics of what is being proposed. Indicate what the DAO needs to implement.
• Conclusion — Outline the voting choices and any relevant details around cost and timelines.

Apart from improvement proposals, a Draft Proposal may also be written when filing a Motion of No Confidence to review a Governance Council member’s performance.

Prescribed format for a Motion of No Confidence (as approved in CUIP-04)

• Title — Motion to Review a Council Member’s Performance
• Summary — Two or three sentences describing what the review is for.
• Name of the Council Member for review — Indicate the Discord handle of the Council Member.
• Rationale for the motion — Describe why the community needs to review the performance of the said Council Member.
• Details — Dive into the details of the events that lead to the motion (including dates and links if necessary).
• Conclusion — Summarize the information presented and outline the voting choices.

The process during this phase is as follows:

• Posts in the Draft Proposal section stay open for at least 5 days.
• The Facilitator will add the CUIP code and tag upon approval of the Draft Proposal.
• The implementing team, vendor, or contractor will post an Impact Report in response to the Draft Proposal. This is applicable when the author is not part of the implementing body.
• If the post receives a lot of engagement and if the community sentiment is majorly positive, the Draft Proposal will be forwarded to the Governance Council for final approval before going to Snapshot. This will be reviewed during the bi-monthly Governance Council meeting.
• A Temperature Check will be conducted if the community sentiment is divided.

TEMPERATURE CHECK

While we’ve so far agreed on the first few proposals, we do understand that different voices will emerge, and we need to know how to proceed in scenarios where community sentiment isn’t clear.

• The Facilitator will initiate a Temperature Check on Draft Proposals where the community sentiment is divided.
• For a Temperature Check to be successful, the number of participants should reach or exceed 10% sRBW holder participation.
• The Temperature Check poll will stay open for 5 days. The Draft Proposal will also remain open for 5 more days during this period. We expect the author and the community to actively discuss and, hopefully, find a consensus during this period.
• Proposals that pass the Temperature Check will be forwarded to the Governance Council for further review.

GOVERNANCE COUNCIL APPROVAL

The Governance Council members are elected as outlined in the approved CUIP-04 — Governance Council Installation. Our hope is to enlist the help of elected community members to ensure that proposals cater to the overall good of the community and project. Here’s how we envision this step.

• Proposals with mostly positive reception and proposals that passed the optional Temperature Check will be reviewed by the Governance Council to determine if the Draft Proposal is ready to go live on Snapshot.
• The Governance Council will convene to review proposals on a bi-monthly basis.
• The Governance Council may reject a proposal if they identify content or risk that may harm the well-being of the project or the community.
• If this happens, the Governance Council will publish a report detailing the result of the deliberations, their recommendations, and their positions regarding the topic.

SNAPSHOT VOTING

Similar to the first iteration, only the LG team can submit a proposal to Snapshot in the initial stages of the process. When the Governance Council approves a Draft Proposal, the Facilitator will post it on Snapshot so that the community may vote on it.

• Each voting period will last 5 days.
• For a proposal to pass, it must meet a quorum of 33% of sRBW.
• Once the voting period is over, we’ll record the result in the “Live Proposals” section and start putting them into action.

IMPLEMENTATION

Once a Crypto Unicorns Improvement Proposal gets passed after a Snapshot vote, we intend to continually coordinate with the associated contributors, contractors or development teams to ensure that the agreed-upon proposal specifications are met.

• Throughout the lifetime of the proposal, the Facilitator will have monthly check-ins with the associated implementers for all approved CUIPs.
• If the associated contributors, contractors or development teams consistently fail to deliver the agreed-upon specifications, the Facilitator will publish a report on our official SNS channels to inform the community so that we can once again collectively decide how to move forward.

We’re getting to the exciting part of our journey. With your help, we hope to continue to refine this as we collectively discover the unique needs of our community and project.

— The Laguna Games Team

View the full article