• General
  • Request for Comment: Internal Governance Model [KIP-19]

CryptoLife 100% agree. It would be good to see evidence of the need.

Also, I agree with what @Phaedrus said:
"I think the proposal as it stands is lacking some clarity around the "problem definition" and would like to see the specific issues".

I can support the "in favor" vote, but, the team must be transparent all the time, approving operational budgets, compensation structures, etc.
Also, is always good to have some KIPs along the way tho.

I truly want to see Klima succeed in the best way.
Cheers.

    Atmosfearful I think its important, for some of us (or maybe just me) who are simply "retail investors" to remember that we aren't the ones doing all the hard work, blood, sweat and tears. We're shielded from all the stress and drama that happens under the hood and can't understand all moving parts and internal politics. Its easy for us to throw a lot of shade and feel entitled because, we're wanna-b fat cat "investors."

    I find it important to for me to remember these are the same people I believed and trusted in from the beginning. And their intentions are still for the good of the project.

    I've voted in favor of this proposal.

      G-OHMie this KIP gives Core & Council carte blanche over the DAO wallet and operations. Don’t expect any KIPs over that, unless they feel like it. The only thing the community is retaining consent over is the treasury. For all the talk of running KlimaDAO like a startup, no angels/VCs in their right minds would give founders/management such total leeway without a business plan/white paper with clear budgets, deliverables, timelines, milestones, etc.

      I usually prefer to just observe things but I find myself itching to give my opinion.
      Few questions I would like everyone to ask themselves are:

      What is the goal of KlimaDAO? We all bought into the vision, so what was that confirmatory factor for you?
      If this was to be your own project how would you achieve this goal?
      What challenges do you think you'd face in order to achieve this goal?
      How would you go on about navigating these challenges?

      If I were to record everyone's response, I can assure you, no two people would have exactly the same path in their mind to take. However, we will all arrive at the same conclusion.

      A DAO is about FIRST recognizing all these various paths, bringing all these various paths together, merging them and finding the most OPTIMAL path towards this shared destination.

      Every path have both pros and cons, strengths and weakness, highs and lows, whatever you call it. What is most important is being able to get the line of best fit.

      How do we get this? By RECOGNITION , ANALYSIS, SOLUTION and then OPTIMIZATION.

      There is no point talking about if we should be fully decentralized or fully centralized, because I am sure everyone knows we can not be either of those. What we can be though is OPTIMIZATION which is a balance between both ends of the spectrum.

      There is clarity on the recognition for improvement to better optimize our output.
      Is there clarity on the analysis of the issues we have or could have? I can't answer this.
      Do we feel a solution or the solution have been provided? I can't answer this either.

      What I can say though is that there is really no right or wrong answer to this. So regardless of the outcome, we will arrive our destination. Perhaps faster, smoother and efficiently or perhaps rough, tiring and inefficiently. Either way the most important factor remains the goal. So feel free guys to share your path, and keep in mind just because your neighbor disagree doesn't make your contribution wrong. Vote according to your convictions! WAGMI!

      CryptoLife First of all, it is great that you will vote at all. The % of people that have historically voted has been very, very low, regardless of how important a KIP is. I have voted on all KIPs even if the voting result before my insignificant vote was 99% FOR. This low voting % is somewhat counterintuitive to the whole decentralization ethos because if people don't vote, what is the point of a DAO and these KIPs in the first place? Promoting voting and getting the % higher should be a main task for the relevant DAO people.

      Related to this, what you say is the major difference. A DAO (at least the way I understand it) should not be treated as a listed TradOrg with separation between investors and management/employees. Investors like you, me and everyone else have:

      1. Paid for the majority of the treasury assets
      2. Paid for the funds in the DAO wallet, which has been used as the operating budget for expenses
      3. Have been bearing the financial risk (loss in this case) since October given how the market has developed

      The Founders and contributors have started the project, worked very hard and thankfully gotten it so far AS a result of the continued monetary vote of confidence by everyone in the community. If these incentives hadn't worked out, Klima would have been forced to turn into a traditional startup with external funding in order to achieve its vision and goals.

      The % of Apple investors compared to Apple users is tiny as opposed to Klima where pretty much all "users" are also investors. Every new Klima user automatically becomes an investor of sorts. This is a very different (probably better) dynamic. Imagine how much more powerful and impactful the DAO will be if all the 60k Klima investors could be engaged to help out with the development, usage, marketing etc of Klima. True magic will happen that any public company would kill for.

      This is a point that I feel is getting lost a bit in the whole "Klima is a tech SaaS startup" argument. To me, the inverse makes more sense: Klima is a carbon central bank with an initial SaaS solution attached to it (one of many). But the central product is the token, the rest are utility functions of the token, which are anyway directly linked to the treasury.

      When you look at it from this perspective, the outward community product management approach makes a lot more sense than turning inwards. The first offers a much higher leverage, the second offers temporary speed / execution benefits, which are necessary, but not as important mid to long-term imo. I sincerely hope this will happen with this and future KIPs. I would hate to see a missed opportunity to innovate around the business and org models.

      In a nutshell, you and the whole community are much more important than you give yourself credit for.

      Hugh

      To be able to operate at any level, there needs to be a structure and delegation of authority. This proposal is paramount.

      A DAO does not mean that nobody reports to anyone or that there is no hierarchy of decision making. It means we have transparency and a democratic process for elevating/modifying direction of leadership.

      Good move here. Full support

      I believe that decentralization is key to the long term success of KlimaDAO even though it sacrifices short term agility. Having a central point of failure in the form of a CEO is a great strategy for a company but it is not well suited for a DAO. If the core team wants more agility in terms of decision making when it comes to certain aspects then they can bring forward separate KIPs focused particularly on those specific aspects instead of this general all-encompassing KIP.
      I will vote against this KIP.
      EDIT: After the clarifications made in today's call I might have to reconsider my vote. Still on the fence about it though.

        mak this is exactly what was the main counterproposal, but looks like it’s not gonna happen. Thanks for your reasoned dissent regardless 🌳,🌳. Let’s see what the future holds for KlimaDAO; here’s to hoping it’s brilliant 🌟

        • mak likes this.

        mak Could you elaborate on what was clarified in the call today that wasn't clear during your first read-through of this RFC? Whatever it is we should be sure to incorporate into the actual KIP & snapshot language.

        • mak replied to this.

          Trenchant, thoughtful points have been made on both sides in this debate, both here and in the contributor server. Ultimately, in aligning ourselves with KlimaDAO we have all committed to tackling the thorniest of real-world problems and one that requires us to pull in the same direction; something we have by and large managed to do so far but that demands a continued laser-guided focus on what works in shifting a whole market on chain to fight climate breakdown. This is a massive task, and I think requires some pragmatism as we find our path and try to scale. I am committed to the DAO as a decentralized entity but have not been convinced these changes mean a fundamental shift away from that. Moreover, to me, the ideal that drives us is not decentralization per se but fighting climate change. The dialogue will of course continue on how best to do that as the DAO (all KLIMA holders, not just contributors) is full of smart, passionate people. But clearer structure and focus will help us all. I respect the opposing voices enormously and am grateful to be part of the same community as them – in particular, the commitment to a working group and to foregrounding progress on decentralization are really positive steps. I vote in favor, though, as I do think this renewal and the clarity it should bring will serve the aim of the DAO.

          Atmosfearful Main takeaway for me was that the team acknowledges that the current setup is centralized and that they want to go towards more decentralization. Additionally they have made it a part of this KIP to investigate how to go about this. I was also unaware of the 3 of 5 multisig previously so as long as that's the case this KIP is just adding a clarification to the existing system instead of changing anything.
          I'm still on the fence about the KIP because I think there needs to be a deadline specified by which the roadmap to decentralization needs to be formalized and put into a new KIP. Otherwise it can create perverse incentives which may keep delaying the roadmap.

            Very interesting conversation & arguments from both sides and people way smarter than me. My only comment as a non-contributing community member is that given the limited information at my disposal, I have to infer a lot about how the current governance works and most of my deductions are probably wrong. I therefore second mak idea of a deadline by which the roadmap to decentralization needs to be formalized, and eventually a more detailed governance framework presented to the community.
            Since then, keep up the good work!

            How do I see the results of the vote, if I didn't manage to vote for this in time?

            FWIW - I would have voted in favor of this.

            Write a Reply...