Updated the first post announcing that the vote has started and added a note about voting with raw transactions using MyCrypto if anyone has trouble using the Aragon client.
@stellarmagnet, thank you for taking the time of going through my rambling please allow me to comment a bit further on your answers.
Yeah, exactly my point. I believe probably might be better to allocate a budget for a quarterly retreat than trying on the hybrid approach, as I’ve had mixed experiences as well with hybrid setups. If the entire team has remote experience, then, by all means, carry on!
The most common setup is to release 1 year and afterwards monthly, but I was thinking more in which mechanism the team will “confirm” the person has left or continues being part of the organization. How will the org confirm someone is part of it, or vote that a person needs to leave? How can we enforce this?
From the token lock perspective, my team has been working on this topic for some time and came up with Trust (Contracts, App), which reflects a “legal” Trust where you can set money apart for a person given a specific period of time. If there’s enough interest, we can see how we can set this within Aragon cc @jorge. Otherwise, I’m sure there are smart contracts somewhere that can be signed through a Multi-sig to release this when needed.
I agree, it has been quite hard for me to get started with their stack, and I know their contracts have 10k+ LOC which made audits impossible. I also agree that it makes more sense to have a system built within Aragon, and the approach of token minting is just about fine.
Commented! If there is any place where we can discuss identity apart from the Aragon Coop group, I would be extremely happy
Oh, you can go to the Online Gnosis Wallet and just add your multi-sig wallet by pasting the address. No need to build a fancy UI! It will read the owners and showcase all the transactions. I think the only thing missing is the owners of that wallet having a link to their keybases.
My company has the same setup and it would be nice to have a way to brand it the same way Aragon did with the multi-sig setup. I wonder how easy would be to do this for any project! But to avoid feature creep as you mention, I think the online one from Gnosis works fine for whoever wants to take a look.
Good stuff, and crossing fingers for a happy AGP outcome!
We will definitely have to put some though on how vesting contracts over vesting contracts can be done in a good way. Something @luis and I were discussing a year ago when we started thinking about Flock was to have each organization create their own token that is backed by the ANT that is progressively vesting (we use this contract for A1 vestings, after the cliff a proportional amount of tokens gets unlocked every block until they are all vested). So the flock organization token could have its own vesting schedule for employees, and that would allow to eventually convert for a proportional part of the ANT that backs the token.
New updates on AGP-18:
Suggestion: Instead of calling the vote cycles “AGP Vote #”, what if it was Aragon Network Vote #1?
E.g.: ANV-2 occurs in April!
Then it wont get confusing if one is referring to an AGP # or an AGP Vote #?
Does this need an AGP?
We could do a proclamation in the next round, but I agree on the naming convention so I am just gonna start calling it like that
The nomenclature around the AGP process is still a WIP, I would be ok with referring to it as the Aragon Network Vote #x instead of the AGP Vote #x. We wouldn’t have to do a proclamation AGP (which seems a bit overkill for this, at least right now) but we could make it a convention used by the AGP Editors and communications teams by adding it to our style guide.
Good to hear
Just want to highlight these amazing retro-future utopia GIFs created by Alexis Aiono to support AGP-19:
The first post in this thread has been updated, and I also published a blog post this morning sharing the final results of Aragon Network Vote #1 (HT @stellarmagnet): https://blog.aragon.org/final-results-from-aragon-network-vote-1/
I would like to call attention to this survey that we have included in the blog post soliciting feedback from voters and non-voters alike about how we can improve the AGP submission and voting process. I’ve seen great comments here and on other threads and chat channels about this, but thought a survey might provide a useful way for community members to provide structured feedback. Anonymous results will be published publicly for the benefit of all who are interested.
You can take the feedback survey here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/N5V5RZ7