Hi Jimmie, just realized I didn’t update you! This language has been added to the proposal with some slight adjustments.
To balance governance and efficiency, the BitDAO representative(s) will help decide non-major decisions (e.g., establishing strategic partnerships). In contrast, any decision that involves significant transfer of voting rights or capital that exceeds a certain threshold should be presented to the BitDAO community via soft proposals and decided through a BitDAO snapshot vote.
The above process will be used in the following cases:
- Onboarding of Community Partners above a certain threshold of voting rights: >10%
- Investments over a certain threshold of capital: >$10M (unless the BitDAO representative(s) deem that this would significantly hinder or negatively impact Game7).
- Transference of voting rights among Community Partners (all partners including Forte) >10%
This process will be terminated once no single Game7 partner holds > 40% Voting Rights.
As you can see the adopted language you provided was used nearly verbatim with two slight modifications.
-
An exception on investments over $10M, but only in circumstances where it would negatively impact Game7 in doing so. I do not foresee this exception being used often, but there is a non zero chance that widely publicizing a funding request for an investment, partnership etc. could materially harm the success of that investment or partnership.
-
This process will be terminated once every partner holds less than 40% Voting Rights. We believe that these “training wheels” allow BitDAO to have more initial control during the bootstrapping phase, but once a sufficient percentage of Voting Power has been re-allocated, these provisions should be removed to prevent continued active engagement from BitDAO in Game7 operations. Additional funding requests after the initial $80M would still be discussed and voted on by BitDAO. I believe that this is very much in line with the spirit of the BitDAO whitepaper as referenced by several others above.
Find ways to avoid micro-decisions from being bottlenecked by the top-level BitDAO governance process. Limit BitDAO governance to mandate and funding approval. Allow partners to be autonomous.
Really appreciate your feedback and I honestly have to say that it is so cool participating in an initiative that is driven by the community. A month ago I was just another person reading through the BitDAO docs that sparked a few ideas and here we are discussing governance clauses, absolutely incredible. As an aside, would love to discuss with you directly on Discord if you’re a member there! I have a few other proposals I am working on and would love additional insight. That goes for anyone reading this as well, would love to have more active communication happening in Discord!