The purpose of this conversation is to introduce a template for the dYdX governance process. The main idea is to harmonize the governance topics and establish a pattern for each proposal, making them easier to comprehend for the participants in the governance process.
Title of Proposal:[Insert Title Here]
Authors:[Insert Name of the Author]
Summary:[Insert a brief summary of the proposal]
Background:[Insert a brief background on the parameter being changed, its current value, and the reason for the proposed change]
Objective:[Insert the objective of the proposal]
Proposal Details:
Parameter: [Insert the parameter being changed]
Current Value: [Insert the current value of the parameter]
Proposed Value: [Insert the proposed value of the parameter]
Rationale: [Insert the rationale for the proposed change, including any relevant technical or economic considerations]
Impact Assessment:
Technical Impact: [Insert the potential technical impact of the proposed change, including any potential risks or benefits]
Economic Impact: [Insert the potential economic impact of the proposed change, including any potential costs or benefits]
Social Impact: [Insert the potential social impact of the proposed change, including any potential benefits or risks to stakeholders]
Voting:
Voting on this proposal means…
By voting YES on this proposal, you agree that…
By voting NO on this proposal, you disagree that …
By voting NO WITH VETO, you disagree with the overall proposal.
By voting ABSTAIN, you decline to give an opinion on this proposal.
Conclusion:[Insert a concluding statement summarizing the proposal and its potential impact]
Depending on the type of governance proposal, certain parameters may not be relevant. For example, a proposal to create a DAO constitution would not have any significant technical or economic impact, but it would have a social impact.
Hi @Paul, thanks for bringing this up. We believe it’s a great practice to check the formality of how the whole governance process works and specifically how proposals are created.
Looking at the Proposal Lifecycle section from the dYdX official Governance Documentation, the below template for the DRC is provided:
At a minimum, DRCs must include:
Short and concise titles of the DRC
A short and concise description of the proposal
The rationale for the DRC, e.g. why?
The title of the forum post must include DRC: with the short title of the DRC. E.g. DRC: New Market Request
A community poll that community members can use to vote on improvements off-chain
And in each snapshot phase, in addition to the above, the below should be considered:
a voting system
a voting period
a voting delay
binary voting options (if needed to be implemented by dYdX Trading Inc.)
The minimum quorum and vote differential should be satisfied depending on the types of proposals.
We think your proposed sections can be incorporated into the description and rationale, and the selection of voting can be added to the voting system explanation.
When it comes to being in the on-chain DIP Creation phase, the proposer is required to provide a DIP via GitHub and the DIP needs to be reviewed by the Foundation to be put up for its on-chain voting. The template has been provided here.
Looking at [the Proposal Lifecycle section ](https://docs.dydx.community/dydx-governance/voting-and-governance/dip-proposal-lifecycle) from the dYdX official Governance Documentation, the below template for the DRC is provided:
> At a minimum, DRCs must include:
>
>
>
> * Short and concise titles of the DRC
> * A short and concise description of the proposal
> * The rationale for the DRC, e.g. why?
> * The title of the forum post must include DRC: with the short title of the DRC. E.g. DRC: New Market Request
> * A community poll that community members can use to vote on improvements off-chain
And in each snapshot phase, in addition to the above, the below should be considered:
> * a voting system
> * a voting period
> * a voting delay
> * binary voting options (if needed to be implemented by dYdX Trading Inc.)
The minimum quorum and vote differential should be satisfied depending on the types of proposals.
Thank you for your response, @tane. I believe that the governance process and templates should evolve in tandem with dYdX’s progression, especially as it approaches becoming its own L1.
The necessity of a voting period and system might not apply to every proposal. Voting platforms like mintscan and keplr will automatically provide this information.
Given the significance of the governance aspect in various Cosmos chains, crucial for token holders and network validators, it is important, in my opinion, to simplify the understanding of each proposal as much as possible without losing the essence of each proposal. It’s why the template proposed is more specific on each impact and include more details on the voting options.
Currently, the process can be overly complex for certain community members. The risk here is that this complexity might diminish their interest in dYdX’s governance. In turn, this could lead to reduced decentralization in the future. For matters such as constitutions or event budgets, if they fall under governance, they need not undergo an elaborate process. Instead, these should be easily manageable by community members. By reducing the complexity of creating a proper governance proposal, we can move in that direction.
Welcome to DYDX.FORUM & Thank you @Paul for this first contribution.
Your template makes a lot of sense—some additional thoughts:
1- During the DRC Discussion & Feedback period you might consider leveraging the poll functionalities from the dydx.forum to run a temperature check.
2- Velocity of governance discussions and votes are paramount in our fast-moving industry and markets. It would undoubtedly be valuable to add to all gov proposals a timeline so readers get an immediate and crystal sense of the cadence/timeline of the discussed proposal.
Example: Proposal Timeline JUL/27 - Forum Post & temp check AUG/03 - AMA Call AUG/09 - Snapshot proposal AUG/13 - Snapshot results
Thanks for your feedback I have included it in the template proposal and will create an off chain poll.
Since dYdX is going to be on Cosmos, will you keep an open testnet version of dYdX chain and a mainnet one? In that case we would rework the Proposal Timeline section in a near future to add into it the voting period on the testnet + test period then the mainnet vote.
Title of Proposal:[Insert Title Here]
Authors:[Insert Name of the Author]
Summary:[Insert a brief summary of the proposal]
Background:[Insert a brief background on the parameter being changed, its current value, and the reason for the proposed change]
Objective:[Insert the objective of the proposal]
Proposal Details:
Parameter: [Insert the parameter being changed]
Current Value: [Insert the current value of the parameter]
Proposed Value: [Insert the proposed value of the parameter]
Rationale: [Insert the rationale for the proposed change, including any relevant technical or economic considerations]
Impact Assessment:
Technical Impact: [Insert the potential technical impact of the proposed change, including any potential risks or benefits]
Economic Impact: [Insert the potential economic impact of the proposed change, including any potential costs or benefits]
Social Impact: [Insert the potential social impact of the proposed change, including any potential benefits or risks to stakeholders]
Proposal Timeline
JUL/27 - Forum Post & off-chain vote
AUG/03 - AMA Call
AUG/09 - Vote proposal
AUG/13 - Vote result
Voting:
Voting on this proposal means…
By voting YES on this proposal, you agree that…
By voting NO on this proposal, you disagree that …
By voting NO WITH VETO, you disagree with the overall proposal.
By voting ABSTAIN, you decline to give an opinion on this proposal.
Conclusion:[Insert a concluding statement summarizing the proposal and its potential impact]
Yes, I’m in favor of implementing this template for the governance.
No, I’m not in favor of implementing this template for the governance.
This is basically the format that most cosmos chains use to put up a proposal on chain.
What has worked is setting a minimum discussion period on forum so that the community has time to analyze and discuss a proposal. Any proposal that goes to voting without this period is immediately vetoed UNLESS its a security or time-sensitive issue. The proposed on-chain date should be included at the end of the proposal as @charles mentioned.
Once we fully migrate to v4 and the Cosmos ecosystem, it is likely for the DAO not to use Snapshot anymore. We should update the governance process and its document through discussions to ensure what the DAO has archived through the Snapshot phase is to be kept in the v4 governance process.
@charles and @dYdXFoundation any internal discussions on this matter? Would it be better to create a separate and focused forum post on it?
