very good
1 Like
-
I’m also not a fan of Snapshot for our purposes, for many of the reasons you say, but I think we’re stuck with it for a little while. It just isn’t feasible to create and audit a smart contract based voting system in the short-run with the time and resources we have available. Part of the governance platform proposals (coming on Thursday) will be to look into ways we can get away from Snapshot and Discourse in the Medium term. (We are also fairly close to the Snapshot team, so it’s possible if we could get a little more clout that we could push them to make UI changes. I’ve discussed this with the SafeDAO people a bit.)
-
Yes, it would make sense that anyone can post a bond for any proposal, provided they’re prepared to assume the cost / risks.
-
This is something to discuss over the coming weeks. It could also make sense to post the bond in xDAI. I’m concerned about the complexity of adding multiple tokens, but maybe I’m overthinking it.
-
The subject of automatic implementation of code within proposals will come up as part of the governance platform discussions. This is obviously a cool and useful thing to have. It may also have legal advantages (there may actually be a legal difference between the trustee performing all the steps to implement a transaction or smart contract interaction and them clicking a single button that does it all automatically - I’m clarifying that ASAP)
However: this community governance setup will need to be able to handle proposals which can’t be fully expressed in code, so we do need to get that side of things sorted as well.
I’m not quite sure what you mean by “at the protocol level” here. Which protocol? HOPR? The HOPR protocol will have its own governance for protocol level adjustments (ticket price, probability, etc.). In fact, part of the philosophy behind this current governance upgrade is to clearly separate out the different sub-parts of HOPR and give them each the kind of governance they need.
Put perhaps you were referring to something else here
3 Likes
Incredible conversation, I can’t add anything else
all my questions are already here.
a well-thought-out plan of the governance process
Thank you guys! you are the best)
Why not use as a protection against spam offers or collateral for non-essential offers that do not require a serious audit of the NFT that community members receive for their contribution? I understand that for more significant issues, a pledge is needed to pay for the work of auditors and the team in order to bring the proposal to life if it is accepted. But for less significant offers, you can use the NFT pledge. Their total number is not so great. Many are really exclusive. You can set a threshold in the amount of interest to confirm the offer. For example, lock several NFTs with an amount of 20% for 2 weeks to make an offer. The old NFS received a year ago are no longer used in staking, but they are still proof of the importance of their owner for the Hopr community. This can be used to protect against spam offers. Also, this mechanics will slightly raise the value of the NFTs themselves and once again stimulate participation in future events to obtain new NFTs.
I would like to integrate them more into the community and not just as a bonus to earning from staking for a couple of weeks. Now most of the NFT is useless in our wallets or is sold for pennies.
I would also suggest using NFT as a multiplier for future votes. For example, 1% of the NFT on the wallet can be conditionally equal to 500-1000 HOPR in possession or be a kind of multiplier that increases the influence of the vote when voting. For example, 1% = +0.02 to the ownership multiplier of HOPR when voting. There are many people who have 20-50% of the total NFT, but at the same time they have very little HOPR and because of this we may not hear these very important members of the community when voting. But a whale with hundreds of thousands of tokens purchased on the exchange and not participating in the life of the community will have much more weight.
3 Likes
Hi team, I will keep it short and simple.
I’ve just went through all the information posted in the forum.
And you know what? Looks f***** great to me. So far, I have no complainings or motives not to trust you. So go on, do the play and we will see how it will go.
Love you <3
PS: Im not high or drunk 
2 Likes
Another posibility would be allowing a proposer to pitch the proposal to the community to crowdfund the audit deposit so as not to kill good ideas in the womb.
1 Like
The team have partially addressed this issue via quadratic voting
1 Like
I like your idea
I love the idea
Good idea re the existing forum becoming on incorporating a sanbox
very comprehensive and well-structured governance framework
Maybe I missed this elsewhere (sorry of if I did!)… What level of impact/interference is envisaged that the DAO will/could have on day to day management of the HOPR business?
This would be the governance for the HOPR Community Trust. Proposals would be limited to those related to management of HOPR Community Trust management and the trust itself.
HOPR Association will continue to have its own governance, which will be much like we have now (a combination of internal governance and periodic requests to token holders).
Both are envisioned as being powerful but infrequent. I’m not expecting daily decision making to be necessary or desirable.
In addition to the cost audit, I think the association should take care of advertising and promoting the image of hopr to develop more, because it will also cost money.
I’m not sure I understand. Do you mean the Community Trust, rather than the Association? The Association won’t be covering audit costs for the trust.
The Association will continue marketing HOPR, of course. But the Trust would also be allowed to do that, if someone makes a proposal that passes. How that would be managed would require some logistical coordination amongst token holders, but it’s perfectly allowable under the processes.
1 Like
I agree with not using HOPR as the dump token on these financial adventures, relying instead on swap fee harvests of currency tokens to fulfill these needs, such as DAI or USDC, etc.