Draft Vote Text For AN DAO Transfer of Funds

Thank you for this clarification! To ensure full compliance with the existing Charter and make it easier to interpret the answers, I suggest making all questions dual choice:

Question 1 - Do you agree to transferring the Treasury and control of the ANT token contract from the Aragon Association to the AN DAO and implementing a delegative ANT voting system, as described here?

  • Yes
  • No

Question 2 - If you answered Yes to Question 1, do you support November 30th, 2022 as the soft deadline for transferring the Treasury and control of the ANT token contract to the AN DAO and implementing a delegative ANT voting system?

  • Yes
  • No

(Side note: If the voting system doesn’t allow submitting answers after skipping a few questions, I would recommend adding a third option to these “If you answered Yes…” type of questions that says “Didn’t answer Yes to Question X” and then not counting this option when deciding between Yes/No. @AlexClay Can you confirm whether the system allows skipping questions or not? Note that I’m assuming it is possible to answer multiple questions within a single vote.)

Question 3 - If you answered Yes to Question 1, do you support February 28th, 2022 as the soft deadline for transferring the Treasury and control of the ANT token contract to the AN DAO and implementing a delegative ANT voting system?

  • Yes
  • No

Question 4 - If you answered Yes to Question 1, do you agree extending the AA and AL runway to February 28th, 2023 (after said date, funding would be allocated through a delegative ANT voting system, as described here)?

  • Yes
  • No

Question 5 - If you answered Yes to Question 1, do you agree extending the AA and AL runway to May 31st, 2023 (after said date, funding would be allocated through a delegative ANT voting system, as described here)?

  • Yes
  • No

Question 6 - Do you agree to using the Aragon Association as a legal wrapper for the AN DAO, thereby providing limited liability protection to those ANT holders that are accepted as members of the Aragon Association, as described here?

  • Yes
  • No

(Side note: @joeycharlesworth Perhaps you’d like to split this question into two separate questions to provide an option to signal support for risk mitigation through the AA while still implementing the proposal referenced in Question 1?

Question 7 - Do you agree to changing the quorum for ANT governance votes from 0.5% to 0.3%?

  • Yes
  • No

Question 8 - Do you agree to changing the quorum for ANT governance votes from 0.5% to 0.1%?


All suggestions to improve the phrasing welcome! Note that the questions are essentially the same as before except that all now have a dual choice answer format. @AlexClay Once folks have reacted to the questions above, can you please update the OP accordingly?

In the hypothetical scenario where Q1 = Yes, but this Q6 is also = Yes, this could be problematic as it would effectively be saying ANT holders want to transfer the funds from the AA and also use the AA as a legal wrapper (with funds still legally held by the AA).

We can switch back to the original formulation but make it dual choice:

Question 1 - What structure would you like to see govern the Treasury and the ANT token contract?

  • Option 1: Delegative ANT Voting (as described here)
  • Option 2: Aragon Association as a legal wrapper for the AN DAO (as described here)

The following questions can then be rephrased to start with “If you chose Option 1 in Question 1, do you…”

Question 6 can be rephrased to “If you chose Option 1 in Question 1, do you support exploring ways to provide limited liability protection to ANT holders via the Aragon Association?” (Alternative suggestions welcome!)

Splitting it would make sense, yes. Would suggest the following:

Question 6 - If you answered No to Question 1, do you agree to keeping the treasury and control of the ANT contract within the Aragon Association but having the entity controlled by ANT holders? (AA becomes a legal wrapper for AN DAO as described here**

Question X - If you answered Yes to Question 1, do you also agree to make the Aragon Association controlled by ANT holders, thereby providing limited liability protection to those ANT holders that join as members of the Aragon Association? (In other words, the AA would not control the treasury but ANT holders could still have limited liability protection and vote on transactions with “real world” entities that cannot be transacted with through AN DAO)

Yes will update it this evening. On the question does everyone need to respond to each question the answer I believe is yes.

Got it. I’m now seeing two paths to finalizing the questions. First option looks like this:

Question 1 - What structure would you prefer govern the Treasury and the ANT token contract?

  • Option 1: Delegative ANT Voting (as described here)
  • Option 2: Aragon Association (AA) as a legal wrapper for the Aragon Network (AN) DAO (as described here)

Question 2 - If you chose Option 1 in Question 1, do you also agree to allowing ANT holders to become voting members of the AA? (Under such an arrangement, the AA would not control the Treasury and the ANT token contract but ANT holders who become members of the AA would have limited liability protection and could vote on decisions to use the AA as a legal proxy for the AN DAO, where necessary.)

  • Yes
  • No
  • Did not choose Option 1 in Question 1

Question 3 - If you chose Option 2 in Question 1, do you agree to keeping the Treasury and control of the ANT token contract within the AA while also allowing ANT holders to become voting members of the AA?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Did not choose Option 2 in Question 1

Question 4 - If you chose Option 1 in Question 1, which date do you support as the soft deadline for transferring the Treasury and control of the ANT token contract to the AN DAO and implementing a delegative ANT voting system?

  • November 30th, 2022
  • February 28th, 2023
  • Did not choose Option 1 in Question 1

Question 5 - If you chose Option 1 in Question 1, do you agree to extending the AA and AL runway beyond November 30th, 2022?

  • Yes
  • No
  • Did not choose Option 1 in Question 1

Question 6 - If you answered Yes to Question 5, how long should the runway be extended (beyond the chosen date, funding would be allocated through a delegative ANT voting system, as described here)?

  • Until February 28th, 2023
  • Until May 31st, 2023
  • Did not answer Yes to Question 5

Question 7 - Do you agree to changing the quorum for ANT governance votes from 0.5% to 0.3%?

  • Yes
  • No

Question 8 - Do you agree to changing the quorum for ANT governance votes from 0.5% to 0.1%?

  • Yes
  • No

The reason to consider adding the “Did not answer…” option to some of the questions is (1) to ensure that all voters can answer all questions (as @AlexClay mentioned, this is a hard requirement to be able to submit answers), and (2) to avoid a situation where, for example, someone who chose Option 2 in Question 1 affects the outcome of Question 2. However, this would result in not getting everyone’s views on all questions, which I would personally consider a shortcoming. To get everyone’s views on each and every question, regardless of their answers to other questions, the questions could be phrased as follows (@eaglelex, please confirm that all this is consistent with the existing Charter):

Question 1 - What structure would you prefer govern the Treasury and the ANT token contract?

  • Option 1: Delegative ANT Voting (as described here)
  • Option 2: Aragon Association (AA) as a legal wrapper for the Aragon Network (AN) DAO (as described here)

Question 2 - If Option 1 in Question 1 were to be implemented, would you agree to allowing ANT holders to become voting members of the AA? (Under such an arrangement, the AA would not control the Treasury and the ANT token contract but ANT holders who become members of the AA would have limited liability protection and could vote on decisions to use the AA as a legal proxy for the AN DAO, where necessary.)

  • Yes
  • No

Question 3 - If Option 2 in Question 1 were to be implemented, would you agree to keeping the Treasury and control of the ANT token contract within the AA while also allowing ANT holders to become voting members of the AA?

  • Yes
  • No

Question 4 - If Option 1 in Question 1 were to be implemented, which date would you support as the soft deadline for transferring the Treasury and control of the ANT token contract to the AN DAO and implementing a delegative ANT voting system?

  • November 30th, 2022
  • February 28th, 2023

Question 5 - If Option 1 in Question 1 were to be implemented, would you agree to extending the AA and AL runway beyond November 30th, 2022?

  • Yes
  • No

Question 6 - If Yes was the winning option in Question 5, how long should the runway be extended (beyond the chosen date, funding would be allocated through a delegative ANT voting system, as described here)?

  • Until February 28th, 2023
  • Until May 31st, 2023

Question 7 - Do you agree to changing the quorum for ANT governance votes from 0.5% to 0.3%?

  • Yes
  • No

Question 8 - Do you agree to changing the quorum for ANT governance votes from 0.5% to 0.1%?

  • Yes
  • No
1 Like

Sorry for the delay Mario, I have to disagree with both of these vote structures. We need to make the vote as simple as possible for members to be able to make an informed decision, using Chains makes it difficult to follow for uninformed users. It sets a bad precedence for the DAO as a whole as you could essentially end up with votes being webs and double negatives. As we know if is often how the vote is asked rather than the question behind which drives the decision.

We should be able to make a decision here on Multiple choice votes being the best option. The Majority should clearly be taken as the favourite. Using the current charter “Support: The vote shall be deemed as “passed” with a simple majority (>50%) of the participating ANT having voted in favour”. For the votes it will simply be the one with simple majority.

If we have multiple options and no, as long as over 50% vote in favour can this not be seen as a simple majority in favour of the decision.

Question 1 is Ok

Question 2 I would change to: Would you like the Aragon Network DAO to have a legal entity to protect contributors and interact with Web2 entities, this could be the Aragon Association or a new entity.

Yes
No

Question 3 - I think this needs removed, this should be answered after the vote

Question 4 - we can keep

Question 5 - What date would you like to extend the core team runway past the date of the transfer of the fund transfer ( I have tweaked this as setting hard deadlines on when the change will have happened may effect teams, eg there is a issue with delegate voting that takes 30 days to resolve, does this mean no pay for that period)

0 months
6 months
9 months

Question 7 and 8 I honestly think we merge - What quorum shall we set for the changing of quorum for Charter changes
0.1
0.3
0.5

3 Likes

@AlexClay adding 0 months to question 5 feels like making the whole situation even worse no (including the fact that contracts have 2 month notice period)? Why not 6, 9 and 12?

That is additional months after the fund transfer, so at the moment there is 0 which is fund transfer 30th November eg the vote could be February for the fund transfer and 9 months runway, this is not a date that is included as a option at the moment.

1 Like

No, that qualifies as “simple majority” only in a dual choice question. If there are more than two options to choose from, it is by definition an “absolute majority”. @eaglelex noted above that the Charter is drafted with dual choice votes in mind. I therefore think it’s only reasonable to make all votes dual choice. Let me address your comments/suggestions question-by-question:

Question 1 - What structure would you prefer govern the Treasury and the ANT token contract?

  • Option 1: Delegative ANT Voting (as described here)
  • Option 2: Aragon Association (AA) as a legal wrapper for the Aragon Network (AN) DAO (as described here)

Unless someone objects, this question can be considered finalized.

Question 2 - If Option 1 in Question 1 were to be implemented, would you agree to allowing ANT holders to become voting members of the AA? (Under such an arrangement, the AA would not control the Treasury and the ANT token contract but ANT holders who become members of the AA would have limited liability protection and could vote on decisions to use the AA as a legal proxy for the AN DAO, where necessary.)

  • Yes
  • No

I understand where your suggestion on Question 2 is coming from but I personally like @joeycharlesworth’s suggestion better because it provides the DAO with a more nuanced view of the voters’ preference. Perhaps you can clarify why you think this question is too complicated for voters to understand or how it would result in a “double negative”?

Question 3 - If Option 2 in Question 1 were to be implemented, would you agree to keeping the Treasury and control of the ANT token contract within the AA while also allowing ANT holders to become voting members of the AA?

  • Yes
  • No

I don’t see a problem in addressing this in a separate vote so, unless someone objects, we can remove this question from the current vote (even though it would be a useful piece of info to have).

Question 4 - If Option 1 in Question 1 were to be implemented, which date would you support as the soft deadline for transferring the Treasury and control of the ANT token contract to the AN DAO and implementing a delegative ANT voting system?

  • November 30th, 2022
  • February 28th, 2023

Unless someone objects, this question can be considered finalized.

Question 5 - If Option 1 in Question 1 were to be implemented, would you agree to extending the AA and AL runway beyond November 30th, 2022?

  • Yes
  • No

Question 6 - If Yes was the winning option in Question 5, how long should the runway be extended (beyond the chosen date, funding would be allocated through a delegative ANT voting system, as described here)?

  • Until February 28th, 2023
  • Until May 31st, 2023

I understand that you’re suggesting combining questions 5 and 6 into a multiple choice question. However, as noted above, the current Charter doesn’t provide guidance on multiple choice questions. I would therefore recommend sticking with two separate dual choice questions. Definitely open to suggestions on the exact phrasing if folks feel the text above is difficult to understand.

Question 7 - Do you agree to changing the quorum for ANT governance votes from 0.5% to 0.3%?

  • Yes
  • No

Question 8 - Do you agree to changing the quorum for ANT governance votes from 0.5% to 0.1%?

  • Yes
  • No

Again, I understand you’re suggesting combining Questions 7 and 8 into a single multiple choice question. But in that case more than 50% in support of the winning option is not a simple majority. It’s by definition an absolute majority which is not something the Charter is clear on. I strongly recommend avoiding ambiguity when it comes to following the existing Charter because, as @lee0007 correctly pointed out, acting otherwise would seriously undermine the legitimacy of the whole process.

@joeycharlesworth @eaglelex and others with detailed knowledge of the Charter, can you please provide clear guidance on how the vote questions should be structured.

ops… stupid me… thanks for the clarification @mlphresearch

Ok agree with you, many thanks for responding, I was hoping we could take an optimistic view on some of the points but agree to avoid any ambiguity in the vote.

Happy with your suggestions, I still think Question 6 should be months and not set dates to avoid the possibility of issues of deployment affecting funding if it is agreed.

1 Like

How about this:

Question 6 - If Yes was the winning option in Question 5, how long should the runway be extended after transferring the Treasury from the AA to the AN DAO (beyond the chosen date, funding would be allocated through a delegative ANT voting system, as described here)?

  • 3 months
  • 6 months

In a November 30th, 2022 implementation scenario, this would correspond to February 28th, 2023 (9 month from now) and May 31st, 2023 (12 months from now), respectively. Does that make sense?

I hope more people will find the time to comment on this thread :slight_smile:

Hi guys, jumping in here. The charter has not been drafted for multiple-choice votes i.e. only for yes or no. In my opinion the >50% support of the participating votes in mandatory in the Charter and cannot be changed. We would use the Swiss proven approach, however, where people have the following option to vote:

  • Voting Question 1:voters can vote yes or no for both initiatives (yes/yes; yes/no; no/yes; or no/no)

  • Voting Question 2: If both initiatives reach the >50% support; people can vote whether they prefer initiative 1 or initiative 2 - here a no voter may prefer initiative 1 or initiative 2, even though initially he voted “no” for both.

Such approach would fit with the Charter.

1 Like

Is it possible to have dual choice questions where the two options are not Yes and No but something else (a la Question 1, Question 4, Question 6, etc.)? If you’d advise against that in light of the existing Charter, it’s possible to rephrase everything into a Yes/No question, which would of course result in more questions to answer, but at least there would no ambiguity when it comes to the Charter.

This looks good to me. It should be noted that multiple choice questions have been used in Voice Votes previously with more than 2 answer options (Ex: Aragon Voice). The results were not subsequently disputed so I do believe there is a precedent for that approach (even if the charter is badly worded / ambiguous). In short, would go with whatever format is most understandable to voters.

I’m of the opinion that, in this particular case, dual choice questions are best because (1) it unambiguously abides by what’s written in the existing Charter, (2) interpreting the answers is as straightforward as it gets (the winning option will have more than 50% of participating ANT by definition, which is also what the Charter explicitly says), and (3) the results would be maximally informative because each voter will be able to express their preferences regardless of which of the two alternative scenarios referenced in Question 1 finds more support.

@AlexClay Can you update the OP and add a note at the very top so that people who haven’t been following the discussion can see what the vote text would look like, as things stand? Assuming no major objections/suggestions by EOD tomorrow, it sounds like voting could be opened before June 2nd, as initially scheduled. Of course, if anyone feels that there still some important kinks to work out, I don’t think delaying the vote a couple of days would change much either.


On a more general note, I think the discussion above will be super helpful should the DAO decide to update the Charter.

I have just updated it @mlphresearch

That’s not the correct set of questions :slight_smile: To avoid creating more confusion, I’ve shared the correct list with you via PM (EDIT: it’s also visible in earlier comments in this thread).

Everyone, once @AlexClay has confirmed updating the OP, please make sure to carefully review the questions in case you have any final suggestions/clarifications.

2 Likes