Ratifying Mangrove DAO's Governance Model v0

[Dydymoon]

@philh

Mangrove DAO’s governance model combines multi-stakeholder general governance with specialized councils, analogous to legislative and executive branches in a parliamentary system. General governance sets strategic directions and policies, while councils, elected or appointed by the general governance, are responsible for operational execution and remain under its overview.

Thanks @philh for creating this proposal, excited to see the Mangrove governance being shaped !

The multistakeholder governance design is very interesting. In addition to being an experiment in DAOs management, it’s also aiming to give a voice to people/projects building with/on top of Mangrove which may create value for its ecosystem despite not necessarily holding MGV.

@Disiaque

Over the coming months, I will be interested to examine the voting statistics and the distribution of voting power among the three existing groups (Builders, Holders, Pods). It appears that regular monitoring of these metrics will be essential to ensure that no group is disengaged in governance. If there is, we must be ready to react accordingly.

However I fully agree with Disiaque that monitoring these metrics in the coming months will be highly important, especially to prevent abuses if any, or to reconsider the model in case the voting distributions bring issues between the different groups.

@philh

Builders Group: Influence varies based on the duration and intensity of collaboration (full-time or part-time). Quadratic voting is employed to smooth out inequalities within the group.

Make sense. As the builder group can include many different profiles, I guess the differentiation between full/part time is a simplified way to define influence, so it doesn’t require tracking the contribution time of various contributors ?

It can be useful to add a link explaining the Quadratic voting in case some are unfamiliar.

@philh

Successful ideas from the forum’s ‘temperature check’ process must be addressed by the relevant Council. The Council must either elevate the idea to a formal proposal or provide public justifications for its rejection, explaining the reasons and considerations behind their decision.

I have two concerns on this point:

• While I agree that counting on councils to submit most votes on Snapshot at first can prevent mistakes/unclear info/spam, adding this restriction for the forum steps might prevent new people from contributing.

However, if any contributor gets the ability to publish a temp check/formal proposal, it will help a lot to have core contributors as forum moderators, enabling to update the post if needed (i.e wrong proposal number, missing/wrong post type, missing info requested in the framework etc) which can’t be done on Snapshot.

• This design aims to fix a common issue in governance with an initial idea proposed on the forum, followed by discussions/feedback/changes before voting. The best would be to recap all updates & adapt the snapshot, however proposals are often either posted on snapshot without changes, with a simple TL;DR or with the forum link as justification, in which case voters have to actually read everything.

So I agree that having most changes in temp check to have a clean proposal reflected on snapshot make sense if the goal is only having a clear governance, but my second concern is more about the duration to execute a proposal with all steps included (temp check/debate/formal proposal/feedback/snapshot vote) which can affect efficiency if too long (but probably a topic for governance process v0).

Outside of these details, I’m looking forward to observing the multistakeholder governance design in action for the Mangrove DAO !