I was wondering what do you think about this DAO model with separations of power?
Hey @sneg55. Welcome to the Aragon Community Forum
Thank you for sharing this post. Great synopsis of the token governance landscape at the moment. There’s lots of problems with lots of things, but knowing history can help us avoid it (key word help lol)
Historically, as far as I know, the best way to avoid governance dumpster fires is to separate powers. It’s essential. The entire point of governance is to make decisions, but if power dynamics are unbalanced then those governing can extract value from those being governed. This results in value extraction rather than value creation. In a system with high barriers to entry and exit, this sucks a lot and tends not to lead to positive sum growth.
If the interests of all parties involved are aligned, however, then decisions are more likely to reflect the interests of those participating. A separation of powers makes it even harder for one group to commandeer the system to their own ends. As a result, if the system is set up correctly and people engage in the process, there’s a chance it might work out.
Beyond separating powers and aligning incentives within the game of the protocol, if people have the ability to exit the protocol then the probability of high quality decision making goes up even more. At the same time we also want people to have skin in the game. There’s always a balance between making people stake to commit to the consequences of their actions while also allowing them to exit in the case of a disagreement. If people have to stake to participate, but then can’t exit if things don’t go their way - things get awkward. In this case the defense against shadow voters (minimum 1 year staking period) seems to be in conflict with the defense against plutocracy (two day time lock where token holders can exit), but maybe I’m missing something?
Assuming that powers are separated, interests are aligned, and participants have the freedom to exit - then how do you get people to engage? First, make something worth governing. Second, make it easy for people to engage in governance. Really interested to see how liquid-democracy/delegated-voting (call it what you want to call it) plays out. Might lead to lots of engagement, but will it lead to high quality decisions - or will charismatic yet foolish politicians capture the hearts and votes of the community as they tend to do? TBD.
Now I return the question to you: what do you think about this DAO model with separations of power?