This is a space for the AN DAO community to discuss the implications of Governance Proposal : Future of the AN DAO Charter and Financial Proposal : Future of AN DAO Funding for its members and contributors and how they want to continue participating in Aragon’s mission.
I will share my opinion here where I wont in the other threads. I think that there should simply be a vote week one of the delegates being in place to role the teams over. I don’t think they need to be new proposals or justifications made. The teams were approved by ANT holders already and therefore it would be a confirmation vote.
Hello Alex, (excuse some of my english)
This is an important discussion. Although it may seem polite, rolling teams over goes against the principal’s that were previously discussed and shared by the co-founder Luis, in which a minuscule population of ANT token holders hold every token holder hostage from the “wet agreements” from the ANDAO. Although core-member @evanaronson wrote that separating these 2 ideas of “dry and wet” in relation to the ANDAO is important so it should be for the new DAO. This means that delegates should be making these decisions in a vote. It makes zero sense from an on and off-chain perspective for things from a different DAO to be carried into a new one without discussion, justification, and a vote. It’s a new entity after all, governed completely differently, with a new charter, new procedures, etc.
Edit: addition: furthermore this is the opportunity for “Rage quit” if the new rules are not liked by the current paid contributors of the ANDAO as there will be and should be new operational procedures. Including vacation, onboarding, off-boarding, legal, etc.
Sorry to be rough, but this seems clear to me.
hey @Dunedain . I’m not 100% sure I understand your points, but I’ll do my best to reply.
Part of the reason why the on-chain vs off-chain distinction is so important is that each have different properties, which either limits or expands our available options. The immutability of the DAO contracts is requiring us to deploy a new DAO with a different charter. If all goes according to planned (as per the already passed fund transfer proposal), there will be a new DAO that holds the funds that are currently being held by the AA Treasury. I totally agree that this doesn’t directly translate into the social layer. The rituals, practices, activities, fun, and human bonding that has happened on the discord server during events or wherever else is independent of the fund transfer or new charter. Nevertheless, if anyone else who is part of the community (more below on what that actually means) wants to contribute and be compensated, they will have to request the funds from the new DAO, either directly or indirectly. Let me know if I misunderstood your point!
Another comment I wanted to make is that while rereading @AClay 's post, three dimensions of “community” came to mind, which could be confusing if we’re not careful.
- Community as a specific guild called the Community Guild, which is given budget to pay specific contributors.
- Community as all contributors and members being funded to participate in Aragon’s mission. This is what is stated in the OP.
- Community as a superset, including all non-paid Aragon fans, DAO builders, integrators, potential partners, ANT token holders, or even anyone else that is vision aligned and chilling at Aragon-related things!
To avoid typecasting myself as the robotic proposal parser, I guess I should take a stance on something. IMO it makes sense that, while discussing community, we focus on tools and the mode of interaction between people who generate value. Afterall, we’re a digital community that largely lives inside of tools! Discord is a tool built for bringing communities together, it does a great job at that, and we have a passionate community (using my “superset” definition)! So… I don’t see the problem with keep moving forward, business as usual. We have almost 10k people in our discord! Let’s keep the momentum! I wouldn’t consider this a “rollover”. Of course, it’s more than tools, but I’d love to see this thread unravel each of these different “artifacts” and we can figure out what makes sense for each.
Regarding the other definitions of community, I don’t think these should be the focus of the conversation. The Community Guild stewarded by @Shawncubbedge can request funds from a future DAO. Other paid contributors can do the same. These should be dealt with in their own financial proposals and judged according to their own merits. I don’t see how we can derive any meaningful generalizations about them here.
In absolute agreement with everything Evan has said here.
Hello Evan, again sorry for my english.
Yes I very much agree with your analysis. This on-chain vs off-chain distinction seems to be confusing many people. It’s clear that community members (which are more than paid workers) must apply to the new DAO for funding. This will best ensure ANT holders such as myself can finally participate more or for others who want to delegate their tokens to increase participation.
Based on your community analysis the title of this discussion should be changed to Future of AN DAO workers/contributors or the discussion moved towards one about the community which would include myself!
Hey there @Dunedain, not sure what exactly is confusing for you. However, please know, you’re more than welcome to be a part of the community at any time in any way you would like to. Is there anything particular you had in mind? If so please feel free to message me on Discord and we can chat. My username is shawnzywonzie#4546
I understood this was the purpose of moving treasury and funding decisions to a delegate-enabled DAO
That :: New DAO =
Evolved or New Charter = New Funding Process = New Proposals.
If we had evolved the existing Charter, teams would have grounds for legitimate rollover, but we didn’t take that path forward. As we are NOT rolling over the Charter under which AN DAO contributors/teams/guilds are currently funded, imo the only way to ensure a level playing field is for every team/guild to use the New Charter and the process it contains to attract funding. Surely the new Charter will establish due process for delegate-approved funding that should apply equally to everyone, from day one.
Whether this is termed a confirmation vote doesn’t really matter because delegates should apply the same due diligence equally to every proposal. The idea of no justification required is a bit unrealistic, given delegates may have questions to ask of every current team and have varying approaches to approving funding.
Can we please just be straight up, open and transparent with contributors? Delegates will require justification, it is literally their duty of care…and no one worthy of the role is going to risk the liability of professional negligence on a treasury of this size in an environment of increasing regulatory scrutiny…
Perhaps the same proposals can be repurposed or updated but they need to be approved via the new Chartered process with delegate’s due diligence. The situation is that we don’t actually know anything about the new funding process until we see the new Charter? Is there an ETA on when the AA will begin to share the New Charter @jessicasmith
And in the interim contributors can focus on what they do best in terms of delivering impact and value for the Network so that they can evidence this to delegates come S2
Re Charter for the Delegate Voting DAO, the timeline was shared on the Aragon Blog and will continue to be updated to reflect latest developments : The Future of Aragon: Treasury to Transfer into a Delegated Voting DAO. We are currently working with external consultants for expert review, and the stakeholder engagement process (incl. community) is set to begin during the month of September (to my knowledge, this is on track and should kick off within the next 2 weeks).
Also wanted to add that @Shawncubbedge will be the point of contact to gather and consolidate feedback on behalf of the community.
Please, don’t avoid this. Clarification means everything in forum discussion and I’m sure everyone appreciates it.
I fully understand your concerns, which I found very legitimate, and I endorse them as a person that want Aragon to succeed as a fundamental block for the Web3 world we’re building.
There needs to be more transparency (and this also means more curated content and less bureaucracy) and less top-down magic formulas behind the scenes. My biggest fear is that all the important announcements and details will be made at the last minute (including the goal of the DAO and what kind of proposals will be funded and how). But also that relevant people will be left behind (1) and that the new DAO will become even more centralized (very likely) resulting in an increased downfall of the project.
*(1) this happened already in the past, when the project stopped hearing the community of fans&devs and satellite projects, resulting in a bad outcome for Aragon and forks that didn’t bring value back to Aragon Client
Only if the process is fully open to the community and taking enough time, it will be possible to detect possible risks and flaws, so it can be improved.
Maybe I’m wrong, but everything seems to be following the same failed methodology that Aragon direction endorsed the last two years.
In addition, with the current power relation (that could be even less balanced in the new DAO), I think it would be very difficult to aggregate enough power to change the direction if the current strategy fails. The new Aragon DAO could become really vulnerable because of that. (Specially because it would be super difficult to challenge the status quo that can arise with such a power centralization).
This is exactly what we’ve been trying to avoid within the AN DAO the past year. It seems to me this is almost like a pendulum. We started very centralized with the Aragon Association, then swung over to the extremely decentralized AN DAO, now we are swinging back into this delegated model that seems to be a more decentralized version of the traditional organization that started all of this.
I think it is just important we don’t get comfortable here and accept this model as the status quo. We need to continuously make this organization and our processes better to raise the bar for what it means to be a DAO in order to let the pendulum continue to swing until it reaches a middle point. Then start over and interate.
We are continuing to attempt to avoid most of the issues you’ve stated here in the DAO while also picking up and dusting off the community that was pushed aside in the past. I think it will take some time but we will get back to a place where the community is a huge focus within Aragon. While also creating systems within that community to empower it to be self-sustaining and focused on helping Aragon and the entire ecosystem move forward.
While we work on this within the DAO we just need to try to make sure that there isn’t too much fuckery going on at higher levels. This will only deter people from wanting to get more involved, if even at a lower level. Although the majority of people aren’t even aware or don’t care that this is or could be happening. However, word does travel fast and any ambiguity can and usually is taken as foul play. I can understand not wanting to air out dirty laundry but at a certain point, people just want to hear something even if its not what they expected.
For the record, every single guild that submitted a proposal for S2 was informed and advised that any continued funding beyond November (end of S2 of AN DAO) will most likely depend on the delegates. Guilds that chose to apply for longer funding are aware of the risk and took it. Although it has not been a certainty, the need to re-apply for funding it is definitely not going to be a surprise to anyone.
I do not recall being informed of this. For the record.
This is not true.
Not only that, but we have virtually no information about what is going to happen in the coming months, so we call for a halt to the votes that have been opened in Aragon Voice.
Different ANDAO contributors and ANT holders do disagree that voting is taking place before all relevant information has been made available.
We demand to receive all the information about the objective, roadmap, strategy and functioning of the new DAO before proceeding with any vote. Otherwise, we are giving a blank check by agreeing to anything without knowing what it entails.
It’s shameful, inappropriate and disrespectful for a DAO to ignore the democratic values that this kind of organization should embody.
In the Aragon community, some people feel empowered to speak up while others do not, the latter because they feel there is too great an imbalance of power and there are gags in many ways.
At this moment we are not organized, we just want to push for these inconsistencies to stop.
The request we make comes from the depths of our good faith and looking for Aragon’s success. We’re hoping our petition will bring about positive change. If it doesn’t, we will then consider other ways to organize and push for change.
But that will not change the fact that this vote sets a terrible precedent for Aragon if it is not canceled and relaunched with all the necessary information for all the ANT holders.
Can we ask who informed and advised? I raised the question of funding terms (6months) via an ESD meeting 27 June to help prepare teams in advance of S2. And again, here However, it is only within the last month that the intention to terminate the Charter and the AN DAO has come to light - when the current governance proposal was edited (8 September) to make terminating the Charter the purpose for voting.
Call me cynical but for the record imo
We have and continue to fail the community (at all levels) on transparency - perhaps this is because everything is in flux and nothing has ever been certain - but the lack of transparency, open and honest communication about what is certain/uncertain makes it appear that there always was a centralised agenda, that is being dripfed top-down.
@Shawncubbedge I know you felt AN DAO was at some stage “extremely decentralized” but I disagree because in my centralised position within the AN DAO Executive Sub DAO (ESD) it is my repeated experience that we have always been beholden to the AA who have demanded strategic alignment (via the ESD) while withholding any strategy that could have empowered decentralisation. And we are still waiting…
If knowledge is power - voting to terminate the Charter without even a glimpse of the new Charter - then withholding key information equates to a power play, an effort to control the narrative and opportunity surrounding this Transfer of funds while maintaining the pretence of decentralisation. When the organisation building DAO infrastructure is actively centralising a DAO it doesn’t bode well for Aragon’s integrity…
Honestly, I just wonder if the plan for the future of the AN DAO community was only ever intended as a marketing front established as a “community” to buy time for product development and then slowly dismantled, reformatted steamroller style while being offered open-ended conversation to remove community side transparency from other posts and drag out the situation beyond people’s willingness to engage in the process or remain standing for the values many of us rallied to - while the planned agenda progresses
Aragon’s treasury is centrally held by a Swiss association.
Soon, the treasury will be governed by ANT holders. Whether or not one considers this centralized or not does not depend on an agenda, but rather it depends on the token distribution visible here:
Hello, (as always excuse my english as it’s not my mother tongue)
@evanaronson continues to make points that is the most pragmatic way of thinking and it’s in the best interest of the community mentioned to acknowledge these, as painful as you may think they are.
Our ideas of what is decentralised or not is irrelevant. Also asking for things to be shared from outside the ANDAO is irrelevant. Transparency outside of ANDAO, irrelevant. The ANDAO is beholden to only what is in the ANDAO. i.e. financial reports of ANDAO, strategy of ANDAO, funds received by AA inside ANDAO. In fact, only on-chain executed actions are what people are entitled to. The Aragon Association holds the treasury and pays the ANDAO an amount to follow its goals based on ANT token weighted voting. The token holders (a big amount) voted to start a new delegate DAO… this voting amount was much higher than the 0.1% (in another thread) I saw mentioned to start the ANDAO. So this actually is good news for ANT holders. The fact Aragon Association is agreeing to this signal vote is actually also excellent news, as bylaw they don’t have to. Now Aragon will follow a road that is decided by token holders and not by 0.1% as the ANDAO was created. An entire group of people are bound to a 0.1% vote. Now this is being fixed. This is how decision making should be based on Aragon and is good.
As @evanaronson mentions the treasury will be moved and soon governed by ANT holders, until then it is not decentralised.
I think for people it’s important to understand: Soon, we may all vote if we hold ANT. Our voice (power) will be based on how much ANT we hold. One can buy more ANT to have a larger voice. If you do not like this, you are unfortunately in the wrong place to make decisions.
I am sorry if this is bad news for people. I believe those who continue to want things are misunderstanding what is and what isn’t. But it is simple: more ANT is more decision making power and as @evanaronson mentions, this is easily seen on the blockchain. There are other DAOs out there with 1p1v for example, this is not this DAO. I am here because I believe in what Aragon is building! $8billion + TVL on Aragon from technology products. I am okay with my small power and have chosen to enter this ecosystem anyways. I don’t even do any work and I participate, I can’t do this in other places, so I am happy! But as I mentioned above, my happiness is irrelevant, only my ANT size is.
Transferring the treasury while reformatting governance imo doesn’t change the balance in favour of decentralisation
Which holders benefit is being optimised here? Because we can see it is not the DAO community that contributed time and talent in support of Aragon and received minimal ANT in exchange. Optimising in favour of capital investment is the state of token-weighted voting and as a results we are pursuing a top-down agenda here - the transfer of funds the new dao let’s be open about who is setting the agenda instead of pretending this represents decentralisation of anything, except the treasury.
@Dunedain This is only true in as much as it applied equally to either DAO. ANT holders could already create proposals and vote via AN DAO. You can vote on this current proposal.
I just don’t believe that the people with the most ANT are the people on which this project will rise - I believe community is integral to the success of DAO and am disappointed that community was not openly accounted for in the equation here.
It is by definition that token-weighted governance gives decisive voting power to large holders. Of course, such a system has its shortcomings, most notably in situations where 1-person/entity-1-vote would result in a different outcome, but it is how Aragon governance currently works. That said, I think it makes sense to explore alternatives and discuss/identify situations in which pure token-weighted voting could be either complemented or replaced with something else in the future.
I’m not trying to gloss over real differences of opinion which are likely to remain regardless of the voting system used. But I do think we should be careful when making broad statements about, or for, any stakeholder group as a whole. Both ANT holders large and small, as well as individual community members who do not hold ANT, may have different views on different topics. Both contributors of capital and labor are integral to the success of Aragon and I don’t think they’re necessarily at odds with each other. Indeed, there’s often considerable overlap in their views and interests, and not only when the two groups overlap as ANT holders.