Governance Cycles

Governance Operations
1

Here to move a conversation started in telegram about whether zkNation should implement governance cycles.

Personally, +1 on the cycles. Although they often make governance very unfriendly for those not core (more complexity to understand how the cycles work, stages, etc). So they need to be designed with that in mind.

Then, different types of decisions work at different speeds (e.g. a strategy or vision shouldn’t be revised every 2-4 weeks or it becomes chaotic). So a system can be monthly cycles for proposals and 3 monthly “sprints” followed by 1 month for reflection/strategy.

3 Likes
2

Hi could you please elaborate on what you exactly mean? I don’t think anybody can follow if they haven’t been in these telegram chats/groups.

3

The idea that was proposed is that proposals can be done in cycles/epochs/sprints. So that proposals are submitted and assessed in batches.

Some examples of that are Cardano’s Project Catalyst, SingularityNET (now ASI as merged with Fetch and Ocean Protocol)'s DeepFunding, and SAFE (gnosis safe)'s Obra. Those are all different but you have cycles in them.

4

I like the idea of having cycles/epochs for proposals, especially the part where there will be an evaluation period after each. Things get chaotic very quickly, especially when a new DAO gets formulated. Let’s take good practices from others and bring them into ZKNation.

Also, is there a TG group for ZKNation? If yes, how can we join in?

5

imo, no definitely not

“there should be/are governance cycles” is an offchain understanding/agreement not embedded in code

there is no mechanism for binding all delegates or other ecosystem participants into this offchain understanding/agreement

even if there were such a method, there is no practical way to enforce that understanding/agreement

imo ZkSync should not fall prey to the same ‘let’s make up a bunch of offchain rules with no documentation/enforcement mechanism’ trend that so many other DAOs have–let’s stick to the chain

1 Like
6

I’m curious to understand your perspective better. Why is sticking to the chain important?

(whether they’re off chain rules or simply guidelines, social norms)

7

I think my explanation is fairly self-explanatory but to slightly elaborate:

A rule that cannot be enforced or that everyone does not voluntarily abide by is not a rule

Let’s say we have this ‘rule’ of ‘governance cycles’…what happens when someone makes a proposal ‘out of cycle’? You have no way to punish them, you have no way to prevent other people from supporting the proposal out of cycle–because the real rules are onchain, not whatever ‘rules about cycles’ we bureaucratically make up on these governance forums.

1 Like
8

I agree with the previous comment. Also wouldn’t this stop/slowdown growth? There should be clear rules, yes. But if we have to wait one week or more for the next cycle because one was too slow competition could be faster.

9

I see your point. The way we have approached it in other ecosystems is about guidelines. So people can propose things off cycle but we have a social agreement (i.e. not a rule) to follow the guidelines.

And that can address @Ezr3al concern as proposals can be presented off-cycle when there’s a compelling reason (while in the majority of cases there isn’t).

The advantage of cycles is then comparison. As a basket of proposals can be evaluated in one go and only the most promising funded.

That being said, I don’t feel strongly about this issue at this early stage. I’m curious to hear what others think though

10

I’m a fan of periodisation in DAOs (cycles, epochs, seasons however you want to call them). It allows people to build routines out of what is essentially a slightly more chaotic self organised approach to organisation, which aids in coordination and engagement.

There is already some degree of on-chain cyclical practice in the DAO. There are two 7 day voting windows, which is extended if quorum is hit on the last day, allowing the veto powered entities to intermediate if required (which is very sensible, but it would be better if it wasn’t triggered often).

Each time a proposal is posted, delegates will be expected to coordinate to review the proposal and vote. Ideally a sufficient quorum is hit in advance of the extension day.

On each occasion there is an information flow that needs to happen. Word needs to get to the delegates that there’s a proposal, delegates review, delegates vote, rinse repeat.

The problem is, delegates very often don’t coordinate, turn up, get the message, review proposals or vote. Herding cats gets more real, the more decentralised the system.

Let’s just take the toy example of there being 4 proposals a month in perfect sequence. 4 coordination events are required from the delegates. If however, they’re all posted at the same time, there’s one. Clearly, in the latter case (and let’s say it’s always the last week of the month and we’ve got used to the practice), then you’re more likely to get a higher engagement and greater levels of consideration and thus decision making quality on the proposals.

Obviously we have a trade off here, of speed vs decision making quality with additional considerations of workload and attention requirements for the delegates.

Now, as Lex quite rightly pointed out, if this was an approach taken by the DAO it would be an off chain norm rather than a rule directly enforceable by an on-chain mechanism. However, we already have a number of off-chain guideline systems, the credo, the code of conduct and the delegation standards.

The credo for example is enforced by the outcomes of the vote. Delegates see alignment against these off chain guidelines and if they don’t align they vote no.

A similar principle could be used for sequencing proposals. Sure, you can post your proposal on the first week of the month, but the chance of you hitting quorum and getting a passing a proposal is lower because the cats get herded on the last week of the month. So it would make sense for someone who’s taken the time to build a proposal to have their delegate ship their proposal at the time they know would have the highest chance of hitting quorum.

Whether this is worth doing or not is a function of how many proposals the DAO plans on processing of course. Not a problem right now, but I think it’s worth keeping a conversation like this on the table for when its relevant. Additionally, temporal structures like this can lead to reflective feedback loop practices where the effectiveness of proposals are back tested against decisions and KPIs routinely. Again, not enforced on chain but can lead to better DAO outcomes.

I’m totally in support of, and appreciate the call for sticking to chain enforced mechanisms and keeping bureaucratic nonsense to a minimum, but it shouldn’t mean off chain coordination practices couldn’t be forged as norms in the DAO over time.

4 Likes
11

I have no experience with gov cycles, so no strong opinio, but:

From my experience it is important to (usually) focus on decision quality. But since it’s not a rule, but more of a guideline, proposals where speed is relevant could still be fast laned, right?
So there’s not a real contradiction?

2 Likes