Provide better timeframes, transparency and implement a better way to vote on treasury management proposals.
This proposal aims at improving the transparency and efficiency of the current governance process by introducing minimum requirements and reducing existent timeframes.
- Reduce and implement minimum timeframes.
- Provides minimum requirements for steps before a proposal is voted.
- Implement Treasury Management Proposals (TMP)
|Governance Stage||Min. Timeframe||Quorum||Views||Votes|
|DAO Discussion||2 days||average*||average*||60%|
|Request for Comments||3 days||average*||average*||60%|
|Wonderland Improvement Proposal||3 days||N / A||N / A||N / A|
|WIP Vote||4 days||5k TIME||N/A||50%|
|Treasury Management Proposal||N/A||N/A||N/A||50%|
|TMP Vote||4 days||5k TIME||N/A||50%|
*The average should include the last 30 days and may have a 10% range above/under for views. Forum posts continue to have views even after they are closed. The 10% range would allow to compensate for those, but also give flexibility when engagement may slow down depending on market conditions.
The number of users required for the minimum requirement excludes users involved in the proposal. Comments, likes and/or poll votes can be used towards the quorum of users.
Polls and official votes should always have an option to maintain the status quo.
In consultation with the delegated official1 , elected officials may bypass the DAO Discussion step when submitting a proposal. If the proposal goes against or in a different direction than an already voted proposal, the DAO Discussion should not be skipped.
RFCs, WIPs and TMPs are to be reviewed and approved by the delegated official1 to ensure the proposals are clear, coherent and DAO guidelines followed. When submitted by the delegated official1 they must be reviewed by another elected official for approval.
Minimum requirements will be calculated by the delegated official1 and a forum post will be updated regularly to keep the DAO informed.
1Until voted otherwise, forum moderators and administrators will act as the delegated officials enforcing the framework.
A TMP is a request to alter specific parameters regarding the management of the treasury, renew previously approved budgets, or assist treasury personnel with decision making processes when required by previous governance such as WIP 14 and the current Treasury Allocation Proposal.
These proposals are to be formally voted on by the DAO. However, unlike a WIP, the TMP does not need to go through the complete governance process. A TMP should be posted by an elected official and should explain the reason for the TMP as well as the available options proposed to the DAO.
Due to a TMP bypassing the regular governance process, there needs to be certain limits to prevent the mismanagement of the treasury funds by rushing the process.
A TMP should not be used to modify terms of previously voted WIP that are not directly related to treasury management or where the proposal did not allow that flexibility (e.g. liquid staking, redemption, $SIFU investment, etc).
A TMP should not be used for seed investments or buying specific tokens.
- A TMP could be used to ask the DAO to make a specific asset a strategic asset without voting on how much should be bought.
- A TMP could also be used if the purchase of the seed investment or specific tokens meets an established treasury guideline.
In a situation where there is a conflict of interest with the proposer of a strategy, the regular governance process should be followed if the Risk Officer and the elected members voting on the proposed strategy believe further discussion is required to address the conflict.
- In the event that the conflict of interest comes from the elected members voting on the proposed strategy or the Risk Officer, the strategy can be voted through a TMP.
If it is unclear whether a certain treasury management situation can be dealt with using a TMP, the guidelines should be clarified and the regular governance process used.
Click to expand the definition used for conflict of interest
A member exhibits a conflict of interest if they are personally affiliated with the receiving protocol, have a financial incentive in the investment beyond the scope of their commission and/or salary with WL, or personally associated with an individual who is involved with the receiving protocol (ie. friend, relative, or associate of an individual at the receiving protocol).
Time should be taken to consider all possible conflicts before voting on a proposal and all potential conflicts should be voluntarily articulated to team members by said individual prior to participating in a vote and/or at the time of the proposal being submitted.
An example of personal affiliation with the receiving protocol can be, but is not limited to; maintaining a paid position with the receiving protocol, or a position of authority without pay in the receiving protocol (It is possible the latter situation results in compensation at a later date).
An example of a financial incentive beyond the scope of commission or salary from WL can be, but is not limited to: Personally holding native assets of the receiving protocol. (If I hold Token X and propose an investment in that protocol, my conflict arises due to the possibility that my personal holdings may increase in value as a result of the investment).
There are limited requirements to implement this proposal.
Current voting tool’s (Snapshot) settings will have to be adjusted. Moderators and elected officials will need to adjust to the new requirements.