Last Edited: Jan. 4 2022
With a growing Doodlebank (1,429 ETH at time of writing) we have an opportunity as a community to manage our collective treasury to further the interests of the Doodles. However, the current direct democracy approach to voting is creating friction in our ability to generate action. Both by the necessity for members to read proposals and reach quorum but also due to community members being less likely to take the time to draft proposals due to their unlikelihood of being voted on.
Doodlebank Council Purpose
We hope to establish an action committee made up of delegated Doodles in order to:
- Provide a framework for building support and executing on high conviction ideas from the Doodlebank
- Reduce friction needed to approve proposals up to 25 ETH (“Racks”)
- Leverage trusted voices to ensure all Doodlebank proposals are reviewed and discussed.
The council will be composed of 55 Doodle Delegates (0.1% of current holders). These Doodles will commit to reviewing proposals as a group once per week. A summary of proposal decisions will be sent to the Doodles #think-tank channel.
In the spirit of 1 Doodle = 1 Doodle, holders will receive 1 delegate vote for each Doodle they hold. They may assign their Doodles in any quantity to any number of holders. These delegated Doodles may also be moved to another holder at any time.
The top 55 delegated holders will be reviewed on the first Monday of each month and established for the subsequent monthly period.
All proposals required a simple majority of the council to be approved. Delegates receive the number of votes delegated to them (i.e. someone delegated 100 Doodles would have 100 votes).
Subcommittees are social clubs established by Doodle holders for the purpose of combining their efforts to develop ideas and champion proposals. Colloquially known as DAOs (though none are currently acting with a shared treasury) these collections of holders serve as working groups to help bring ideas to life. These subcommittees may be created by anyone and include any collection of Doodle holders. Current examples include PickleDAO, CoffeeDAO, DevilDAO, CozyDAO and PopsicleDAO
Role Definition & Responsibilities
Snapshot of top 55 delegated holders taken each month for a term.
Responsible for reviewing Doodlebank proposals 25 ETH and under once per week.
Vote in accordance with the Doodles delegated to them
Summary of reviewed proposals delivered to #think-tank each week along with decisions
Liaison with the central team to discuss upcoming opportunities; drafting proposals.
Social clubs around shared interests (rarity, hobbies, skills, etc)
Draft proposals to champion as a subcommittee
- Create #council and #sub-committee channels within Discord.
- Use google form to establish weekly meeting for the council
- Assign “minutes” role for delegated council member to summarize and deliver meeting results to #think-tank
thank you for this @Pickle. excellent framework and i wholeheartedly agree. i believe this should be implemented in tandem with a framework that governs the use of doodlebank funds in clearly worded terms. together, these two developments would lead to some seriously needed smooth sailing for proposals to come. kudos ser
@Pickle thanks for taking the time to submit this. Starting with proposal requiring 25 ETH and under is a great way to get the ball rolling and iterate from there. LFG
Love it. Really appreciate you putting this together and is very needed. How is the delegated Council created? Is anyone able to nominate themselves as a council member? Is there a timeline to get nominated and receive delegated votes? What tool will we be using to handle the ops of this? The only reference I have is the delegation of votes I submitted for the ENSdao. Thanks!
Looks good!! Thanks for spending the time!
This sounds like a great tool to timely assess proposals and to clear the back log of pending projects. Good work.
In terms of moving along actions for less expensive proposals that have garnered interest, why not move quorum to something like Aave’s model? The % we have assigned now feels arbitrary anyway. There is a time factor to Aave’s as well, but that aside, they have 2 conditions:
- A vote of ‘yes’ needs to exceed 2%
- The difference between yes and no needs to be at least 0.5% once the 2% threshold is met.
In the event that the difference between yes and no is less than 0.5%, then technically the quorum is increased to whatever the % of no is +0.5%. This allows for actionable steps to be taken as voted on by active participants and stalls out when there is a clear divide.
I think this is a great idea in concept and something that is very needed to make the Doodle Bank function properly.
My comments are that I think the proposal looks a bit too far ahead (in terms of subcommittees and social clubs - which could come as v2.0).
I feel the most important element to focus on now is to start the delegation process which would need to include:
- nominations for delegates
- potential delegates preparing a statement on why they should be chosen
- voting to choose the delegates
Once this is achieved (which will be a huge task in itself), we can look to implement other add-ons such a subcommittees and social clubs.
Love the idea though and keen to lend a hand if you need any assistance?
How is the council created
Top top 55 doodle holders in terms of total delegated doodles are elected to the council each month. The tool for delegation is TBD.
Is anyone able to nominate themselves as a council member?
Yes any doodle holder may nominate themselves for delegation. We will have a simple form with your Discord/Forum name and your stated reason for seeking delegation.
What tool will we be using to handle the ops of this?
I’d like to mirror ENS’ approach and believe we can reach out to their team to install the same tooling.
We’ve actually already reduced the quorum once. The challenge is a lack of visibility / time invested in reviewing the proposals. Personally, I’d rather have more invested eyes viewing each proposal then reducing the quorum count which may lead to people voting but not taking the time to understand the proposal and sit the with championing team.
I don’t disagree! Those are absolutely the tentpoles of what I would consider our minimum viable proposal. Would love to continue workshopping this. You can find me in the Discord or send me a friend request at Pickle#5970
We discussed the above proposal on Twitter Spaces last night and there are a few items i’d like to be sure we include either as part of this proposal or a subsequent one on the Doodlebank’s purpose.
Spend limit per month - we should give the council a set budget as to not exceed our forecasted burn rate.
Recusal from council when member has a conflict of interest / stands to personally gain outside the Doodle community from the passing of the proposal.
thanks for this pickle! im 100% on the same page with this and think it will really help us start executing on these solid proposals
I did vote for the quorum to be decreased, but isn’t one of the biggest concerns keeping proposals actionable but in a decentralized manner? Delegating en masse definitely moves in the opposite direction. Do you think it is not a safe assumption that the people that would care enough to vote in the first place are reading and/or comprehend what they’re voting on? The execution of proposals is up to the core team or whoever we elect to put in place to carry everything out. It seems to me, however, that removing individual voting power and trusting delegates will always act in each would-be voter’s best interest is faulty.
It’s a fair concern that delegation moves towards centralization. My question would be is full delegation practical for governance? Many democracies operate as republics because it is their belief it is not.
Ultimately any constituent body is going to operate in concentric circles of engagement. Most members are going to be passive participants. That is fine and a healthy part of any community is to have passive, active, power users, and leaders. Delegation enables passive users to operate in a fashion that aligns with their level of commitment and participation while ensuring proposals are given the thought, care, and respect they deserve.
I think this could be a great framework for how to run things. How would we vote in delegates and how would delegates be assigned ? A lot of things to iron out but could be a good start. Would love to be involved!
While I don’t disagree, one can already delegate in snapshot, no? My concern is if we only count a certain number of people with delegated votes, voting becomes an exclusive event and you have to trust whoever you choose to vote for you for the given time frame will always have your best interest. For “lower cost” proposals, I think individuals need to maintain their votes and we just need a significantly lower quorum - similar to the Aave approach I outlined above (a potentially “moving” quorum so to speak).
love this, nice job pickle
Delegates would be voted on via Snapshot and can be adjusted at any time.