Governmental Structure Change for Cabin: Quorum voting requirements for large money DAO Proposals

đź’ˇ Open Discussion
7

Jon and Dahveed, appreciate you both weighing in on this critical governance discussion. :pray:

@Dahveed, the challenges you’ve encountered around participation, apathy, and lack of context in other communities def resonate and I think the solutions you propose are spot on. Excited to jam more on creative incentive structures to drive engagement without the pitfalls of direct monetary rewards. Having a moving-average quorum approach worked well at Kift, but it was a 1-member = 1 vote governance approach, so we’d need to think through how to address Cabin’s quadratic weighting approach.

@jon , I hear you on the risks of quorums and the CityDAO cautionary tale. At the same time, I think we need to be careful not to continue down a path that entrenches the status quo power dynamics.

  1. The reality that I shared stats for above is that currently a tiny portion of circulating tokens (less than 5%) are making decisions for the entire community. I worry that an approach with no quorum at all will just perpetuate that centralization of control,

  2. especially since the only people with any significant engagement with new NAP participants seem to be you, @grin & @savkruger, as the NAP group chats are not made accessible to other neighborhood stewards, and their presence is lacking in Discord and on the forum. Other neighborhood stewards have also been banned from the one shared Celebrating Wins groupchat in Telegram when asking questions that the Labs teamed deemed “not appropriate”, I’ve also been banned from posting discussions about DAO proposals in the Farcaster /Cabin channel, effectively censoring interaction between legacy community members and new accelerator participants.

  3. The Cabin Labs team has also not yet shared that the NAP proposal is up for vote publicly on any social channels, how come?

Anyway…

What if we started with a relatively low quorum (20-30%?) for major decisions that require significant funding (>$30K?) and then experimented our way forward based on actual participation data? We could always adjust as needed, but at least it would start to create some positive pressure towards a more participatory governance culture.

Lots of tricky tradeoffs to balance here, but I hope that if we approach this iteratively and keep a tight feedback loop with the community, we can find a middle path that avoids the extremes of stagnation and entrenched power dynamics. Let’s keep jamming :v:

1 Like