Content
@
https://warpcast.com/~/channel/daos
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Gramajo
@gramajo.eth
Thoughts? Seems like a winner take all situation. Still wrapping my head around it. https://x.com/0xalpo/status/1933202267051843744
2 replies
1 recast
6 reactions
stellaachenbach
@stellaachenbach
Stupid question but why would we need multiple proposals around one decision? Isn't that introducing complexity where it might not be needed? I understand different type of voting decisions but isn't a good debate still useful to not just be in our own heads?
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Gramajo
@gramajo.eth
Nah not stupid at all. I’m also trying to understand it. An example that came to mind for me would be maybe irl activations? So ex: Nouns wants a presence at Farcon, instead of getting multiple props for one irl activation for the same thing, this could make it so it’s one and done but all get evaluated in one go? 🤷♂️ Maybe we’re over engineering it as DAOs can sometimes do 😂
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Trigs
@trigs
I think it requires stepping back and addressing the governance process as a whole. Multiple proposals are necessary when the prompt is identifying a problem and sourcing solutions, rather than problem&solution all in one, like most governance is now. So the example is: Problem: Eth price isn't going up Proposals: multiple different paths to making eth price go up Process: everyone bets on which proposals will result in eth price going up - This only works in situations where you can agree on the problem and the metric to track to verify a solution has been found. Which also becomes its own discovery process.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
Gramajo
@gramajo.eth
I am also struggling to figure out why this would be better than a CFM like butter is doing. Thats literally what they did but with Optimism.
0 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
stellaachenbach
@stellaachenbach
That I could imagine to be interesting but it would require a tremendously educated crowd imo 🤔🤨🧐
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
