Proposal: Claw back 20,000 DAI from DAO v0.2 to support funding of the Lexicon governance platform

We’re proposing that the HOPR Community Trust contributes 50,000 DAI to funding the launch of a new governance platform, Lexicon, of which the Community Trust would be the first registered member.

To offset some of this cost to the main treasury, we’re proposing clawing back some previously allocated funds which are proving hard to spend.

Proposal: Reclaim 20,000 DAI from DAO v0.2 to contribute to funding the Lexicon governance platform

Way back in 2021, we ran our second DAO experiment to decide how to distribute fees earned from providing liquidity on Uniswap v2. There were eight proposals in all: four denominated in HOPR tokens and four in DAI.

The HOPR Association has made good progress on fulfilling these proposals, especially considering the budgets were quite arbitrary, but one has always been difficult: DAI Proposal 3. There are 25,052 DAI unspent here, to facilitate the spending of just 109,811 HOPR tokens. This may prove impossible to fulfil.

We propose clawing back 20,000 DAI to contribute to funding Lexicon, rather than drawing from the remaining community treasury. This would leave 5,052 DAI in the DA0 v0.2 fund, roughly in line with the value of the remaining HOPR tokens. This seems much more manageable and in line with the spirit of the original proposal.

This proposal would only pass if the proposal to fund Lexicon also passes.


I don’t follow. Can you give some more context?

Ah, did not see this one: Proposal: Register the Community Trust on the new Lexicon governance platform

And I read too quickly and rushed things. Freaking heatwave!
Post deleted.

No worries. There’s a lot of posts and I personally find Discourse’s category system hard to navigate. I’d love to find a way to improve this but keep all the cool back-end stuff. This is some of the work the governance platform would be involved in. Not all super cool, but I think very useful.

1 Like

Can you explain a little more about your vision for Lexicon. Is this something other projects would join using a similar governance structure?

Yes that’s right, although “similar” here still covers a huge amount of ground given the choice of available parameters. Many existing DAOs could fit into it, assuming they use the same PROPOSE, DISCUSS, VOTE, IMPLEMENT structure.

The plan would be to:

  • Register the various legal entities needed
  • Build an MVP / prototype version that provides what the Community Trust needs (basically the registration smart contract, Discourse instance, address-forum pseudonym links, participation monitoring, and Safe integrations integration for auto-implementation of on-chain proposals and safer / more transparent management of the trustee multisig)
  • Use the prototype to apply for grants from various sources. There are a lot of projects with existing but somewhat creaky governance who are funding research and development for improved systems and tooling here.

Which grants we received would set the direction and available resources for a while, but ultimately a v1 would contain:

  • Registration UI, where new projects can build governance according to their needs or existing projects with tokens could plug their existing governance into Lexicon. This would include streamlined registration of legal entities.

  • Automated delegation and bond services

  • Connections been phases and tools: i.e., automate the process that passes a proposal from discussion to signature to vote to implementation

  • Audit marketplace, for matching projects with legal and security advisors

  • Wallet connection, so users can connect their wallet and be automatically shown governance they can participate in.

  • Improved vote UI: taking lessons learned from using SnapShot and building a UI which is cleaner and has less unwanted influence on vote outcomes

This is largely modular, so it makes sense to develop these in various orders or in parallel, depending on outside demand.


Sounds great but who exactly are the community Trust members? Are HOPR DAO participants invovled?

The Community Trust would be the name for the trust registered in the British Virgin Islands. It would register its governance rules (decided here) on Lexicon and take its instructions from the HOPR token holders, who would be registered as the set of governance participants for the Trust.

But this link would only exist on the Lexicon platform, not in law, so this would sidestep any need for tokenholders to identify themselves.

So basically everyone who can participate now would still be able to participate, in a way that feels almost identical, but there would be a lot more legal certainty and protections

1 Like

Wow. Thats awesome. You have my vote.

1 Like

Sounds good!

I think it’s just a stupid waste of money, I think it would be much better spent on marketing

Do you have a more specific suggestion? Crypto marketing at the moment generally seems to be very ineffective.

Obviously we haven’t tried everything, but our experience at HOPR of paying for marketing has been that crypto marketing is a predatory industry where the projects are the target. Content gets funnelled into a part of the internet which seems exclusively populated by bots and fake engagement. Sites refuse to share actual numbers. It’s just a bottomless money pit.

The only thing we’ve found to be even remotely successful is to build new products and pitch them directly to other projects and investors at crypto-focused events. That’s what we’ve done with RPCh, and now a dozen plus wallets and RPC providers have entered arrangements which will see HOPR generating actual revenue for the first time.

When we did the Twitter Space which first described Lexicon, we received interest immediately and had our first collaboration call within 36hrs.

By contrast, we invested much more than this into the first RPCh content push and saw no tangible results. Perhaps a much bigger marketing spend would achieve different results, but then you’d need to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars.


Why do you want to fund the Lexicon platform?

Supporting this!
Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to actively participate in the current DAO experiment this time, but I am monitoring the discussions try to follow all the topics!
Keep up the energy guys!

yes no don’t know :sweat_smile:

cant see the point of having the DAI just sitting there doing nothing as long as the remaining hopr is covered so sounds totally sensible to me

off topic a bit I know but is there a list of the wallets and RPC providers with agreements listed anywhere please?

I will ask the marketing and bizdev guys. I maybe shouldn’t even have shared that much :rofl:

1 Like


As Proposal 3 was to increase hardware availability why do you believe this has been hard to implement. Currently with a AVADO node costing around £1000 to buy couldn’t the costs been reduced by a HOPR subsidy or similar as that’s a massive pay back period so probably has put most people off buying one.

Hopefully the Rust implementation whereby you can run a Raspberry Pi or similar for a fraction of the cost will enhance the number of nodes that are running.

If this isn’t viable then I’m all for using it elsewhere but not sure what a Lexicon is or what it means for the future, but like the idea.

Sounds good to me