• General

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

GolanTrevize If BTC & ETH modeled their protocol governance on 2,000 year old empire and 100 year old industrial organizations, they would have utterly failed. We are a network, not a government or business

ETH and BTC don't have protocol governance as you say. Why is this? The governance system (or lack there of) was designed to support the intended purpose of the platform: providing a neutral layer 1.

What is the purpose of Klima? To accelerate decarbonization in an effort to combat climate change. Its very nature is a goal which one could argue is not neutral in nature. Klima is a protocol built on the application layer that is biased towards an outcome.

Comparing these two is rather akin to comparing apples and oranges, particularly when you leave out inconvenient details like how tight the purse of the Ethereum Foundation was/is and how many have argued this would kill Ethereum. I am here to tell everyone that Ethereum is in fact not dead today.

GolanTrevize and it’s misleading our community if not false that what is described in the KIP is at all the status quo.

I strongly disagree with this statement and denounce your accusations of deceit.

        ChazSchmidt

        This is not deceit to say that adding headers to voting option is creating a biases, I learned that in middle school. I denounce your denouncement of deceit. Please don't call people liars, some of use are trying to have a civil debate here.

        Eth and Klima both have goals and governance, I fail to see why this argument is relevant. TBH Eth is far more successful and decentralized than Klima. Please elaborate on how KlimaDAO can better reflect the Eth governance model, there may be some insight on how to resolve this contention in this discussion.

          pitbullish

          "In a fair election it would just say For/Against without any connotation. Saying "maintain informal status quo" is misleading. I would like to see a new system based on actual meritocracy."

          This is a fair point, but writing KIPs in a neutral manner I do think is a learning process. What I've been seeing is a move towards more neutral language over previous KIPs, and I have nothing but confidence weighted language will gradually be less of a problem as we professionalize even more than currently. Minor nitpick, I'm all for letting the larger questions get debated here and see where the sparks that fly when people think together takes us.

            rittaaka

            KIP-19 is a way to achieve this, but not the way. It is very telling that the KIP includes no hard data on why this is needed. Core is essentially saying, "We messed up by creating a DAO and organizing it wrong and hiring too many people, but trust us we got it from here."

            I believe in KlimaDAO contributors and I believe in the KlimaDAO community. There is no reason to concentrate power for the organization to be well run.

            It's disappointing that centralization is the solution KlimaDAO's leadership settled on. I thought we all shared the values of Web3.

              Everyone understands that we need better goals alignment in order to speed up work and decision making.

              The question is how? I am the first to admin that I don't have a silver bullet with a ready solution. This is a DAO so experimentation is a good thing, not a bad one.

              What bothers me is that we are not experimenting. We basically have ONE option, which is not super creative. I understand that things have been chaotic and hyped since October and with the market downturn, a certain level of panic started earlier this month. I get that, but the opportunity to fix things should not be wasted. It makes no sense to vote for this KIP and then work on a different structure and vote for it in 2 months.

              Instead of turning 180 degrees to a structured, centralized hierarchy (I understand this is a knee-jerk reaction to chaos), I would like to also see additional options explored.

              Not later, now. Otherwise we are kicking the can and risk that not much will change.

              I would call for the decentralization journey to start with the approach on this very issue. Right now, we get 1 option to vote yes/no for. I'd like to see 2-3 alternative options per section (product, org chart, general roadmap) with their pros and cons, which will steer the debate towards the ideas instead of people's subjective opinions.

              Yes, it will take more time.
              Yes, it will require more work.
              But it will lead to a much better ultimate result and organizational learning, which the current proposal won't yield.

              The most critical issue - the DAO runway has now been somewhat relieved with the current market movement, which gives us some room. I don't think anyone opposes budget cuts when they are needed, but let's figure out a way to both save the financial aspect of the DAO AND the people aspect. Instead of pushing people away as it happens in traditional corporate structures when things are not well, let's debate how we keep them and even figure out how to expand the teams within the limited budgets via self organization, incentives and self-initiative.

              This way, we will turn outwards to the 60k community and lay the fundamentals that anyone who wants to help out, can do so and there is a way for the DAO to support it. Right now, we risk creating a structured silo and put a gap between DAO management and the community.

              This works with trad orgs. However, as I've often written, the community is the DAO. The community has funded the majority of the DAO's treasury, DAO wallet (hence contributor and other expenses), LPs and are holding the financial risk and reward in the DAO.

              Naturally, all of us want it to succeed. The same way that Klima is at the cutting edge of refi and innovating on products and services in the carbon market, let's be on the cutting innovation edge of community and contributor involvement. The risk reward looks much better to me.

              Thanks all

                KlimaDAO is a startup, and being successful at one is insanely hard. This comes from having built multiple startups before, and having worked in multiple DAOs professionally.

                To do this, we need to be hyper organized, ruthlessly prioritize, and execute flawlessly. Trying to move too quickly on our decentralization journey will slow us down and put our ability to succeed at risk.

                  100% in favour. A modicum of a structure is needed. completely flat organizations simply don't work at scale. As for decenteralization, that can only be achieved through complete on-chain governance and then different Organizations/individuals can fight for implementation of their ideas using their capital. DAO doesn't necessarily mean the org has to be flat and with no top-down guidance, imo, it just means the control is fluid based on who can command the most votes. Right now it may be this particular "DAO" lead by this Core. tomorrow a proposal by someone else can be passed even if this particular DAO opposes it, as long as the vote is in favor.

                  GolanTrevize "I regret the Core & Council's agenda is to pass this KIP no matter the reasoned objection." If they can convince the community to vote for it, isn't that the whole point? in decenteralized governance, if your proposal can garner the most votes, you get to implement that proposal, right?
                  The obvious solution is, if you love the project, but disagree with the DAO as it stands, start your own governance org and try to push proposals through that are modelled along the lines you think things should work.

                  PS no matter the result of the vote I hope talented people like you continue working for the DAO. your contribution has been phenomenal imo.

                    Hugh I don't think anyone is disputing the second paragraph. On treating Klima as a high speed startup, let me ask you this: do you find a DAO to be an appropriate structure for achieving this and how would you use the current structure to amplify the goal you stated above? thanks

                      In order for me to vote in favor of this KIP I would need to see actual quantifiable evidence/examples where not having this centralized power has hurt progress and I would like to see some sort of an expiration date or milestone where we can terminate this centralized power and go back to a DAO.

                      Otherwise this only proves the point that DAO's don't work.

                      I can understand the need for this level of control, only if you are saying that the DAO is in a state of chaos and this is time for "Marshal Law". But this needs to be justified by evidence and a timeline needs to be established for abolishing this "Marshal Law".

                      If no timeline or not plans to do so, this needs to be clearly explained with quantifiable benefits to the Klima holders.

                        Disclosure: I'm NOT a core contributors, simply part of the broader community.

                        Extremely good points were raised in the comment so far!

                        My two cents on this is that at the pace of the project, markets and Web3 ecosystem, decisions inevitably need to be made swiftly for various reasons (market conditions, new regulations off-chain, new investors, new clients, ...) as stated in this proposal.

                        Of course providing such power to few people create centralization which is against the whole DAO philosophy in many ways. But, I believe a functional and trustable "by the book" DAO takes time to build around a stable well working protocol and evolving community. Lets not forget we are 6 months old.

                        We are all working on not only building a sustainable protocol with this immense goal of combating climate change but also building products interfacing with various entities (corporate, individual, contributors, ...). I believe that such endeavor require to be able to adapt quickly and have room to change and innovate without requesting 1 week of debates and voting on each single initiative.

                        As a community, we simply must trust the core teams to do a proper job with strong accountability and a well defined transparency framework so our trust does not erode over time. There is no way around that else we would all be on the council.

                        I do understand that the whole point of a DAO here is that holders are ultimately in charge but maybe there is a balance we can all find here which is what is being proposed until the project becomes strong and stable?

                        In my honest opinion, until KLIMA has a marketcap of 1B$ (arbitrary high number as an image) and is fairly stable in terms of revenue streams and mass adoption, I believe it is OK to consolidate some decision making to the core teams and once we reached that stable point, we can move back to a strong decentralize DAO when fast changes and daily rapid responses become less frequent.

                        In short, we can stick to psycho-rigid maxims of "A DAO is such and such because that was once written like that" or allow ourselves to work towards "Our DAO is what we want it to be" and it is OK to deviate from the great book of DAOs. This is what essentially I understand from this KIP considering the incredibly unique context and project that KlimaDAO is.

                        I believe many comments here raise good issues and I would love to see them address such as https://forum.klimadao.finance/d/48-request-for-comment-internal-governance-model-kip-19/2

                        Once polished and clarified, I think this KIP is something that makes sense in the very unique context of KlimaDAO.

                        Go KlimaDAO! Go Community! This project is fantastic.

                        Sirob I would call for the decentralization journey to start with the approach on this very issue. Right now, we get 1 option to vote yes/no for. I'd like to see 2-3 alternative options per section (product, org chart, general roadmap) with their pros and cons, which will steer the debate towards the ideas instead of people's subjective opinions.

                        This reflects my own sentiments almost perfectly.

                        Discussing different options and having more clarity over org chart, roles, and decision making responsibilities and processes are, for me, prerequisites for the formalization of any kind of structure. As is a higher degree of transparency around the status quo: who are the contributors, what are their roles and what type of compensation they receive?

                        I have no issue with (some degree of) centralisation, in fact I think it's much needed for any kind of org with more than a handful of people. (Although probably not absolutely required, as exemplified by how Valve was structured and governed while growing into a giant market leader in a multi-billion dollar industry).
                        But IME most problems in trad orgs, especially large scale ones, stem from too much concentration of decision making (irt budgeting, hiring/firing, roadmap, etc.) and too much hierarchy and opacity.

                        As a DAO, I'd love for Klima to not fall into the same traps and, although the text on this KIP is too vague for me to clearly assess that, the description and some of the comments from contributors seem to indicate that we might be heading towards that path.

                        Hugh A listing of each Core member’s role will be published soon.
                        I think this (and a bit more tbh) needs to be published before one can meaningful vote for this KIP.

                        Before I can vote in favour of fromalizing any kind of structure I should at least have clarity over what that structure looks like. And Ideally I would also be able to participate (to some degree) in the discussions that end up shaping that structure.

                        So while my vote is "Against", it's not a "maintain informal status quo". It's more a "let's clarify what the status quo looks like and discuss a few different options with the community before we formalize anything".

                            Hugh Inevitably the forces at play work against each other to some degree. A DAO can be a hybrid of both and still represent autonomy. The authority to create such a dynamic can be a function of the DOA. Revisiting the structural authority given to certain roles or individuals can happen regularly as a check valve. It is all possible with the right intent and conscent.

                              Hugh One of the primary concerns I have read about is a lack of quantitative support for making these decisions and a clear framework to guide the resulting decision making process should this pass.

                              I have no doubt concerns about efficiency and organization structure are real so I would like to vote for an option that essentially says “No, but come back with a less vague proposal supported by quantitative analysis and metrics.”

                                To start off with some context: I joined the DAO at the end of December into the Community Dept. Upon joining I did find there was a lack of structure in the DAO and processes. Most projects (whether product, platform or general operations) were completed in silo groups which didn't necessarily make use of the structure of the different dept's which were already apparent. There did seem to be a culture of getting things done but less was done on the planning side or attempting to choose the right resources/skill sets to deliver on the project. Despite the somewhat less normal corporate environment I've been used to, there is no doubt that product was delivered, work was done and more processes were put in place to enable better effeciency.

                                - Context for the proposal, including a brief explanation of the challenges facing the DAO, and the key strategic initiatives we are currently pursuing;

                                For one of the few who was quite vocal for having better alignment and the need for strategic objectives, I totally agree with the need for these to ensure we are aligned with what we are aiming for in the short-term, medium-term and long-term. This will not only ensure we can pull on the right resources to deliver on the objectives but also ensures we can measure our success based on these targets. Contrary to this, our current setup encourages anyone with a good idea to run with it, try to gather people to support it and if it is delivered then it is compensated for - this did create conflict around priorities especially when most projects demanded more capacity from certain departments.

                                - An articulation of the roles, responsibilities and delegated decision authority for key individuals within the DAO, including Core Team, Functional Stewards, the Policy Team, and Internal Contributors;

                                I agree with the need to articulate roles and responsibilities (all all levels of the DAO) but not necessarily delegated decision authority (will explain after) for all members of the DAO (including Core, Functional Stewards, Policy Team and Internal Contributors). This ties in with the objectives point so the DAO can really ensure it has the appropriate skill set to deliver on the necessary objectives and can also measure and manage it's operational budget based on what it needs to deliver. For individuals, I can only speak for myself as an internal contributor. Responsibilities are important to ensure specific tasks are carried out by those who have been identified as having the relevant skillset to complete the task effeciently or with higher success - avoiding the situation where anyone has the right to try to run a project. It also allows myself to know what the DAO is asking of me, I can measure my worth based on the time, experience and success of meeting those responsbilities and expect an appropriate compensation.
                                On the point around delegation, I do believe there are risks around centralising decision rights to Core Team and Functional Stewards. While I agree it does help us move at pace (a small group or individual making decisions vs a decentralised approach of voting) the risks are amplified for internal contributors due to little progress or solid commitment to improve transparency from Core Team and Functional Stewards. As an example, transparency was requested around allocations across the DAO - this resulted in allocations being shared for internal contributors but no Core or Functional Stewards (maybe 1/2) were shared. While there are concerns around doxxing wallets if Core/Functional Stewards are shared, this raises concerns around different rules applying at different levels. Ultimately, I feel centralising decision rights is the way to go in our current journey to move faster however the transparency needs to be worked on more to mitigate the risks to internal contributors prior to formal agreement - we can work on this quite quickly but there is certainly a lack of trust looming at all levels (internal contributors, functional stewards AND core).
                                To note also, since there has been nothing formally confirming the decision rights one may argue that Core are currently assuming specific decision rights (known as status quo).

                                - A proposal to establish a working group dedicated to building out a decentralization roadmap for the DAO.

                                100% agree with this approach with establishing a working group to build out an appropriate DAO for KlimaDAO. However this is dependent on the mitigation of risks around the proposal of formalising the current centralised approach.

                                My overall stance is that I will go with the majority vote regardless and will continue to work on or promote changes to work towards what I believe will help the DAO succeed it's objective/mission while establishing a working environment that I would strive and enjoy. To me, none of the change requests are necessarily red flags or against my morales but certain options will require more trust which should warrant more accountability and responsibilities from those asking for it.

                                I‘m extremely confused by the poll options and the comments. voting „for“ sounds like voting for decentralization but this, it seems, is not the case.

                                I’m actually in agreement with @GolanTrevize and his points. this seems to be a consolidation of power. also, I find it telling that core and council salaries have not been published as of yet. that’s not really the ethos of a DAO

                                  rittaaka but are they held accountable? I would love to hear from contributors how that looks like and if that seems to be working. as a klima investor who’s not a contributor I often feel transparency is lacking but maybe that’s just because i’m not part of the contributor server

                                  • json replied to this.

                                      flippi Council was getting paid 15k/mo and is now being reduced by 30% at a minimum to support DAO treasury runway. Core we're allotted pKLIMA which was announced when KlimaDAO first began and is in the Medium. Moving forward we will be posting a proposal for operational budget with per dept numbers that the community needs to sign off on. As for Core, they never have or will be compensated from the DAO treasury.

                                          flippi Contributors are held accountable through their teams and leads. It doesn't make sense for every department be held accountable to every other department across the board in the current process state/structure of the DAO. What is trying to be implemented are multi-functional Project Process best practices to increase visibility and accountability. This will be reinforced through a cemented agreement between contributor and DAO on their roles and it's key responsibilities.