Dear Meritians,
Over the last couple of days, we have been intensively discussing this proposal with all interested parties. Needless to say the proposal has not just taken the web3 space by surprise, but has also taken us by surprise. In hindsight, it was inevitable that DAO governance would come to these crossroads between law and law of code. We expect the space will see many more interesting edge cases like these in DAO governance.
As we move forward with this proposal and we approach the voting stage, we wish to provide some additional context prior to having this proposal voted on.
Relationship with YGG
YGG was one of the first gaming guilds and therefore felt like a natural addition to the Merit Circle DAO. The ambitions were to unite our knowledge and capabilities in a collaborative manner trying to achieve a more sustainable future for the blockchain gaming industry. At this point in time, YGG looked like the ideal candidate for this.
Since then our relationship has always been friendly. YGG has showcased what they have done since they’ve invested here. At a surface level the post showed minimal involvement. However, to add on to YGG’s statement, we’ve received introductions to early stage investments by them, we did not end up investing in these. YGG also expressed they want to do more in the future to add more value to the Merit Circle DAO and signaled they intend on being a long-term supporter.
Considerations
Some community members have pointed out that the cancellation of an agreement (be it legally, or in the spirit of an agreement) could have serious adverse effects. We want to be seen as a DAO that can be relied upon to do business with.
Value-add was the selection basis on which the investors were selected, it is not part of the SAFT agreement itself.
As an ltd we would like to honor all agreements, however we have to balance that with the power of the DAO… The DAO holds the ultimate power here. This is why we should strive for an alignment of both forces in our governance model, through reason and continuous improvements to the governance system.
Proposal
Given all of the context above, we wish to ask the author of this proposal to;
- Add a clause to the proposal that in the case of acceptance of this proposal (YES) which delays the proposed actions by 2 weeks and gives a 1 week time period for a counter proposal. In which we can issue a resolution for all parties in a timely manner after the vote.
This would give the following voting options
- Yes, with clause
- No
This clause will give us more time to work on an outcome that will leave all parties satisfied. An outcome that will also mitigate potential unforeseen second order effects.
In the case the author does not accept the clause suggestion, we will feel obliged to create a competing proposal in an attempt to give more options to the DAO community. In this scenario, people would have to vote between the competing proposals prior to any of the two competing proposals being able to go to vote
Closing words
The fact that we are having these discussions means we are a DAO worth fighting for. A DAO with passionate members on all sides. A DAO that is not just decentralized in name, but also in effect. As a DAO we should strive to direct this unbridled power in a way that is beneficial to all stakeholders. As a force of good.
We are doing everything that we can to find a solution that works for everyone involved. A solution that weighs all interests to create the best long-term outcome for the Merit Circle DAO.