As seen in our most recent vote - Doodles had lowered the quorum to 10%.
This would mean the vote would pass through, if majority > yes.
The second proposal was made 2 minutes later, which was to refund the founders for their expenditures at the Miami event. Which, to many people, seemed to be an uncertain expenditure - if it was coming from the doodle bank.
To introduce the prevention of Conflict of Interest, I would like to propose that we ensure that voting cannot be made if it benefits you and/or your direct likeness.
Due to this 10% quorum as well as the voting of both Poopie.eth and a24.eth [listed both as “core” members on snapshot.org] - both votes passed. If the collective 390 votes between the two were not counted, then this proposal would not have met the 10% requirement.
While I do understand that this is divisive to certain structures, I do think that it is the healthy decision to transition - as Doodles have made it clear they intend to make it a lifestyle brand that exists outside of the original collection [no direct utility, utility is held by speculative value].
For those wondering, Conflict of Interest is common-practice within organizations and government structures. Of course, someone could transfer to multiple wallets and still vote - but a level of transparency from the founders is needed to ensure the future of the project, especially if we are no longer a DAO as originally intended.
All screen shots are listed below of each snapshot and respective votes -
I would also like to add to this two very important parts.
This would help eliminate any tension that could potentially arise between proposals, founders, and fellow doodlers.
Also, there should be some type of mechanism/penalty if this does happen. I would suggest the proposal is immediately killed and is not able to be presented for 90 days. If the participating voter violates this voting rule a second time, their votes are null and void going forward on any proposal.
How did those votes benefit any one directly?
How did those votes benefit any one directly?
The founders are getting reimbursed with this vote, with the founders voting for themselves to get paid by the doodlebank
It was an event for the company they paid for upfront and out of pocket. It didn’t directly benefit them in the same way buying a Tesla and asking for reimbursement.
It would be in their interest to both 1) lower the quorum before they asked to be reimbursed and 2) to be reimbursed… The funding for the Miami event was discussed but never proposed, the doodle bank funds are reflective of the Community - as I mentioned previously these doodlebank funds have nothing to do with the Doodle brand - as the brand is standalone from the NFT project. Meaning a networking event benefits the brand and not necessarily the collection / investors in the NFT. As NFTS cannot be considered shares of a company.
Also, without the prevention of ‘Conflict of Interest’ it means that anyone who has the delegation of 1000 votes of their own can decide things without the need of the community… Meaning that the current system benefits those who hold more, than those who have less (unique holders).
- The quorum was still 15% for the Miami vote. So that has no bearing.
- The Miami event wasn’t a personal party for them. It was an event for the brand that they paid for completely out of pocket to move fast, as all startups do. They’ve acknowledged the mistake in asking for funds retroactively and will not be permitted to do so again. Positioning this as a personal gain and therefore conflict of interest is flawed imo.
I do think we should have conflict of interest rules fwiw but don’t see this as being that.
Replying to this message to emphasize that while there is more discussion to be had regarding this topic, the logic surrounding the quorum is flawed.
- The 15% to 10% quorum vote was for future preliminary votes, it has no bearing on final votes. The Miami vote was a final vote.
- Final votes have their own quorum requirements dependent on the budget requested.
- The preliminary quorum change was concurrent and not yet approved to have been applicable anyway.
I think the Conflict of Interest idea is very valid and should be implemented going forward
The Doodlebank has everything to do with the Doodle brand - it is the primary and possibly exclusive funding mechanism for the Doodle brand… any event or big cost that goes towards building the Doodle brand will rely on funding from it.
At the core of it, the holders of the NFT will only benefit from the increase in market price for the NFTs… there will be no value added to NFT holders through the increased IP value of Doodle brand.
The only other direct value that holders will/could get from the Doodlebank is Pukenza and a small fraction who got free Noodle mints as it seems that any sort of derivative or airdrop will NOT be a part of the Doodles going forward.
At the end of the day, the Doodlebank is there to grow the Doodle brand and the community do not own or control the Doodlebank, it is just a smart marketing ploy to make people think that they actually have a say.
And here i thought we were “decentralized”. There is no decentralization when owners and founders still hold so much voting power.
Should we therefore limit how many Doodles any one person can own? I own 6. Pranksy has 65. Is that too many? What would you consider decentralized enough?