MichalJ

  • Sep 2, 2023
  • Joined May 16, 2023
  • This is a great proposal and I'm in favour.

    A few questions:

    • Will the QV trial run be on the actual governance or will outcomes be calculated in parallel to the currently existing mechanism? Or will this be decided for each KIP independently?

    • I agree with @jengajojo that the threshold of 2 of 7 is low, but may be a good start. I can imagine that monitoring the users' willingness to instantiate such passports might be a good supportive activity. If needed, educational campaigns can help to encourage voters to move towards more strict rules without loosing any.

    • Users with Klima tokens in different wallets (for which there are legitimate reasons) may loose voting power in this process. I suggest to keep an eye to technical developments around Snapshot etc. A great solution IMO would be a ZK-enabled inclusion of anonymous wallets into a passport. Projects like Sismo might provide helpful solutions, but to my knowledge, they are not available yet.

    • I definitely support @MichalJ 's suggestion to explore, how the alignment of proposals could be taken into account. Certainly, any proposal should align with KlimaDAO's vision, keep the DAO operational etc. Different voting parameters might apply, for example for votes that make a fundamental change compared to votes for which already a wider framework has been voted on beforehand. This may be outside the scope of this proposal, but IMO should be considered as it is part of the overall governance topic.