SPS Governance Proposal - Expand SPS DAO Treasurer Positions
The purpose of this proposal is to make the SPS DAO Treasury more efficient while reducing the burden on existing Treasurers. The treasurers have had significant difficulty gathering 6 signatories within a viable timeframe on numerous occasions. This is problematic because it can create situations where we are unable to respond to issues, such as bridges running out of liquidity, in a timely manner. This proposal aims to fix that by expanding the number of treasurers to offer more coverage in diverse time zones. The nominees are all heavily vested community members with outstanding reputations and their applications are linked below.
Proposal
If this proposal passes, the number of SPS DAO Treasurers will be expanded from 11 to 14.
The following 3 community members will be granted the role of SPS DAO Treasurer and added to the SPS DAO's multisig wallets:
@bravetofu
@meredorn
@royaleagle
sounds like another easy one, yes.
Is it? Team member within DAO Treasury Role? = KDAO? (Kinda Decentralized Autonomous Organization?)
Yes, it's needed some flexibility in order to respond to the market's events, those community members are trustworthy enough.
between the two proposals, it removes the need for proposals and makes the process easier for approvals. If I knew the other was going to fail, this would be an easy yes.
why have SPS...
dont like this direction
For what it's worth, I think we either need more treasurers or we'd have to look at centralizing their time zones better, which has its own risks. Not being able to get 6 treasurers together in a 1 hour period has been an ongoing problem nearly since the start. With HIVE having a 1 hour max window on multisig it's very problematic.
As far as the other proposal, I was asked to run it because quite a few top holders think it's a waste of time to run proposals for small expenses (like having the DAO buy pickle promo cards). I'm generally neutral on that one and even if it does pass, I would hope the caliber of treasurers we have would stop it being from being used frivolously in the first place, because I certainly wouldn't. That said it's crypto, so your position and concern are understandable and I won't argue with you about it.
Slightly off topic but I am unclear as to why there is an assumption that the DAO is going to buy pickle cards. I am not saying we shouldn't, but when and how did that get decided?
Maybe ask Hive to change it to a 3 hour window?
So here's the thing, I actually did. A year ago. It's even coded into the next hardfork that we'll have 24 hour windows on multisig. Here we are a year later still trying to suffer through it and make it work, still with no timeline for the next hardfork.
https://gitlab.syncad.com/hive/hive/-/merge_requests/1383
No shade whatsoever to @royaleagle, but if @davemccoy stepped down from DAO related stuff to separate the DAO & the Splinterlands Team, wouldn't it make sense to consider the same for this position? Feels like this should be the first thing to consider at this point for any DAO related position. Maintain consistency on this point.
I think its a separate situation because of my decision making role on policies and allocations of funds. We as a company don't want to ban others from participating, but I do think that for me and Matt it is best if we maintain that separation.
That's my opinion at least, and why I felt for me it was better for me to step aside.
Yeah, I would definitely agree it was much more important for you to do so since being closer to the heart of the team, although some could just perceive that the heart/will of the team (could) work through their employee... therefore separate but the same. Fundamentally for me personally its walking a thin line. Keeping Entities separate entirely is much better looking. But if we wanna start reading between the lines of Decentralization....just saying.
My apologies, but my mind is in like flow state on this right now since it doesn't feel right. On another note/perspective, Yes all of us hardcore community members that are still here trust the Team & Royal Eagle to maintain separation of power, but if we're about to be targeting a bunch of new players with this Cryto Recovery Fund idea where people are Traumatized and lacking in trust, they come in, learn about the space, & eventually find out a Team member is part of the DAO Treasury...they could very easily just see it as Team Member + DAO Treasury position = Sketchy. Separation mitigates trust for new players coming into the space.
I like and trust all 3 of them! Great decision Clay!
If we go down this road, now we need to ask, how many Team Members are allowed to be Treasurers? This is a new boundary being created that is not necessary. Just because "We/they trust the team" large holders/special interests could then theoretically vote into 6 positions Team Members & DAO keys be monopolized by the Entity it was meant to break away from.
The point of having a DAO is to have voting with skin in the game. If DAO decides it would accept a Steem Monsters Inc. team member, that is the way it should be. If the vote is a "No", then that is how it should be. If you want to influence that decision, stake more SPS. Those with skin in the game decides.
Easy scapegoat argument, but 99% of community will never be able to afford outvoting the top accounts, therefore the only other option is getting the attention of the minnows & dolphins, which I am attempting to do, alongside hoping lager accounts will consider the perspective. Regardless, Company/Team + DAO Positions should remain separate, it should not even be an issue to begin with, imo. You're just saying, let them monopolize it if they vote it. Team Members should never be an Elect to begin with.
You are either advocating for a tragedy of the commons or asking to get sibyl attacked. Those who don't have a stake has no skin in the game in long term sustainability of the game. Those who have the most to loose should make the decisions. I don't recall a single instance where community vote and staked SPS vote were opposite. Most of the community agrees with the general direction of staked SPS votes. Below is the voting statistics for this Proposal:
This is good. We need more participation in both HIVE and SPS governance. Not voting itself is a vote. It means they don't care. We have to get them to care.
Neither! I'm just trying to provide perspective on this slippery slope to Everyone! Regardless of current stake. Yes we should all aim for more stake, I agree. But in this very moment its not like I can just cough up 15 Million SPS xD Therefore, just encouraging those that pay attention to consider another path. And yes, hopefully we can get more to care about voting in general
The only way to make decisions is voting with the stake. Anything else leads to tragedy of the commons or vulnerability for sibyl attacks. People can make decisions with their property. If they disagree with the collective decision, the option is to leave for something that match their preferences.
I don't think we're on the same page here. All I'm saying is we as a community should choose to maintain healthy boundaries for our Ethos. If it passes then yeah, there's nothing to change at that point, but until then this is still just a pre-proposal and we all can vote to edit the 3rd Elect for this position - A community member that's not part of the Company/Team.
Yes. This is what staked SPS voting is for. That is how the community choose. Whether we ban company members from being a part of DAO itself is a DAO Proposal. You are welcome to make it yourself and we can have a vote from the stakeholders.
I agree completely with this. I do think this is a DAO decision as for the rules, and an individual decision for anyone that wants to be a treasurer/board member/etc.
On your point about "outvoting the whales"those numbers are how it is right now. But everyone that votes has to consider the impact to their own interests. Just because someone has a large stake, that doesn't mean they don't care about the dolphins and minnows.
I know I always found it important that I have a large stake so that I could have influence on the outcomes of the votes, but my interests included protecting the Minnows and Dolphins. I don't think the game can succeed without them.
The argument @silentriot makes is a sound one. Even if we, as seasoned Splinterlands players, are absolutely sure that we can trust those who have been nominated for DAO treasurers, and are wholly confident that anyone who’s a team member will do their job honourably (and I personally have no doubts whatsoever in that regard), we should do everything to avoid any appearance, however marginal, of a conflict of interests between the Splinterlands company and the DAO.
I’m voting against this pre-proposal as it now stands.
It makes sense to have more signatories but I do not see how it can be acceptable to have SMI staff as DAO treasurers, so as proposed i feel like I have no alternative but to vote no.