Social Proposal
Request for Action
Constitution Amendment
Abstract:
This proposal is to establish DAO Role Length of Service via Biannual Elections
Rationale:
With role terms, it will enable potential regular changes of who does each role and gives more variety along with increasing DAO activity.
Details:
Current roles will remain active for the first term, with elections held every 6 months.
At each election, an Election Post will be made on the Forum, allowing individuals to self-nominate for the roles they are interested in, along with an explanation of why they should be considered for the position. (A template will be provided for ease of use.)
Current roleholders may choose to re-nominate themselves if they wish to serve another term.
If a new role is introduced during the Biannual Term, it will be included in the upcoming Election Proposal for voting.(Unless voted in the DAO for prior activation, in which case the role will be considered for election the following term.)
Specification:
Role Terms will occur for 7 months for the SoG & CM, 6 months for the other DAO Roles, starting on 1st Jan 2025
Roles will be given an election for each Paid DAO role.
SoG will be responsible for these election posts and confirming results.
Passing Along information; if a role requires training, it would be up to the current DAO member who is active in the role to provide training, training will be for 1 Month.
If, at any point during the term of a main role (SoG or CM), the role is subjected to a ‘No Confidence’ vote through a Proposal & Vote, and the motion is ACCEPTED, the DAO must elect a new member to assume the role. The current roleholder will remain in the position until the new member is trained. During this training period, the role will still be considered active, and a Payment Increase outlined in the Additional Budget will be paid for the month of training, the roleholder then will step down after training the new role electee.
If, at any point during the term of a main role (SoG or CM), the roleholder steps down, the DAO must elect a new member to assume the role. The current roleholder will remain in the position until the new member is trained. During this training period, the role will still be considered active, and a Payment Increase outlined in the Additional Budget will be paid for the month of training.
Required Training Roles:
SoG
CM
Process/Timeline:
Original Start: 1st Jan 2025
1st June 2025: Election Proposal Start (7 Day Self Nomination Period)
8th June 2025: Proposal Gets put to ACTIVE for voting. (7 Days)
22nd June 2025: Proposal Ends with Outcome. (14 days)
22nd June 2025 - End Of June: Cooling-Off Period
1st July 2025: New DAO Roles Active excluding SoG & CM (UNLESS CHANGED) IF ROLE CHANGES
1st July 2025 - 1st August: SoG & CM Training (IF ROLE CHANGED)
1st August: New CM and/or SoG Active. (IF ROLE CHANGED) IF ROLE DOESN’T CHANGE
1st July 2025: SoG and/or CM continue as normal (with no training increase)
Roles eligible for election:
SoG
CM & CM Team Roles
– MM
– SMM
– Moderators
(Payments will be made at the start of the month as normal)
Additional Budget:
SoG Payment Increase for the Election Month ONLY - 180 XTZ (If another SoG role is introduced, this will be split between both SoG’s)
If SoG and/or CM is changed via election and training is required, an increase of 300 XTZ is payable for the last month in service to cover the increased workload and logistics of training the new-SoG/CM.
The role of the Steward of Governance should be administrative, focused on ensuring the smooth operation of DAO processes and adhering to the will of the DAO—not drafting proposals. Regardless of what may have happened in the past (during earlier, more centralized stages of the DAO), it is now critical to maintain the neutrality and clerical nature of the SoG’s position.
Let alone drafting proposals that affect DAO roles themselves—particularly those that could impact their own position. Such proposals absolutely, more than anything else, should originate from the DAO, not the Steward of Governance. To do otherwise risks undermining trust, impartiality, and the collaborative principles on which the DAO is built.
The role of the Steward of Governance is not about ‘building the DAO’ in the way you’re framing it. It’s about administering processes, maintaining neutrality, and facilitating decentralized decision-making—not inserting personal influence into foundational proposals or governance structures. As the DAO matures, this distinction becomes even more critical.
The reference to ‘centralized stages’ highlights how the DAO has evolved and why the Steward of Governance must adapt accordingly. The SoG’s role is to facilitate decentralized decision-making, not to steer it. Proposals that shape the DAO’s structure should come from the community, not the Steward. Dismissing this concern with sarcasm only detracts from the collaborative principles we should be upholding.
Decentralization is not an inherent state but an ongoing process, especially in the context of a DAO. The earliest stages of any DAO are naturally more centralized, as foundational structures and processes are established. Simply calling something a DAO does not automatically achieve decentralization—it’s a goal that must be actively worked toward over time.
The fact that you not only fail to understand this concept but also choose to mock it underscores why you are not suited for the role of Steward of Governance. Decentralization is a fundamental principle of a DAO, and the role requires someone who can grasp and actively work toward this ongoing process—not dismiss it with ridicule.
I agree with your points, however, you’re making it sound like this DAO is extremely active. When it’s not, I hold no voting weight, I don’t sway proposals nor do I approach anyone for votes, nor do I move to active without good reason.
My proposals are for the DAO and the community, I understand how you can see that the SoG shouldn’t be making proposals, I would advise you to propose job description changes for the SoG if you feel a certain way on things the SoG is able to do, such as change rules, make proposals etc.
Maybe introducing a higher quorum for SoG proposals, to enhance restrictions on my proposals. I want this project to succeed, and sometimes feel like if I didn’t do it, nobody would, everyone is free to make proposals and has been the case since the start, it’s just been me and Primate for months on end, and you for the last 2 weeks.
I’ve done everything in the set out description of what the role entailed, and more. I appreciate your concerns and will be more than open to see a proposal from you about changing this.
I think the DAO needs to sit down and talk with each other.
Why is it always JUST us 4 talking about this stuff when Snorlax and I dont even hold any voting weight?
One of my main issues right now is team members having too much voting power. So if he doesnt have any, this puts Snorlax in a better position to write drafts than anyone else IMO.