I like the idea of having the judicial committee but think it should be 7 instead of 5. With 7 we could have a "majority" with 4 voting yes and a "supermajority" with 5 votes. Since these committee members can be voted in, the community will stay play a large role in the building of this ecosystem and process. This also makes me feel comfortable with delegating more authority to the judicial. If this committee votes No unanimously on a proposal, I feel that it should be vetoed and closed. These individuals will have a better idea of what this network and ecosystem needs, as they will be individuals who work closely with the industry and network. If the majority is not comfortable with delegating such authority to the judicial, we could over rule it with more of a majority and participation in the other 2 branches. Another option could be the judicial branch screens proposals & can pass them on for a community vote if accepted by majority of the judicial. If we didnt want to do screening or add a Veto process, I would be Ok with a super majority 5/7 being required for Large & Medium grants. Again, these individuals are elected so it's not like they will hold too much power over the ecosystem if we decide to go this route.
Governments & decentralized organizations have been trying to perfect processes such as these for a long time and there isnt really a perfect solution out there. My reasoning for my line of thinking is quality in the proposals & need for the ecosystem. I like the idea of more money being delegated for protocol, infrastructure, network tools, resources, utility focused projects, and even bringing more smart devs/engineers into the ecosystem. Daofin will definitely take XDC another step torwards decentralization economically, but we also need to be mindful of programmatic decentralization. Programmatic decentralization will only happen if we attract more builders and individuals that care about the network enough to enhance it.
I am also curious about the actual funding process. Would the judicial committee have control over the funding or would that be handled outside of the DAO? Once released from the ecosystem development fund, does the DAO pay out the grants or would it come straight from the ecosystem development wallet?
When it comes to the committee discussing proposals, formal or official statements should take place on xdc.dev but I do like the idea of discussions taking place across all outlets. Discussions through Twitter Spaces, Discord meetings, etc are great for interactive conversations and attract large audiences. This platform should be the home and source, but discussions across all platforms can bring more attention to initiatives.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
I like the idea of having the judicial committee but think it should be 7 instead of 5. With 7 we could have a "majority" with 4 voting yes and a "supermajority" with 5 votes. Since these committee members can be voted in, the community will stay play a large role in the building of this ecosystem and process. This also makes me feel comfortable with delegating more authority to the judicial. If this committee votes No unanimously on a proposal, I feel that it should be vetoed and closed. These individuals will have a better idea of what this network and ecosystem needs, as they will be individuals who work closely with the industry and network. If the majority is not comfortable with delegating such authority to the judicial, we could over rule it with more of a majority and participation in the other 2 branches. Another option could be the judicial branch screens proposals & can pass them on for a community vote if accepted by majority of the judicial. If we didnt want to do screening or add a Veto process, I would be Ok with a super majority 5/7 being required for Large & Medium grants. Again, these individuals are elected so it's not like they will hold too much power over the ecosystem if we decide to go this route.
Governments & decentralized organizations have been trying to perfect processes such as these for a long time and there isnt really a perfect solution out there. My reasoning for my line of thinking is quality in the proposals & need for the ecosystem. I like the idea of more money being delegated for protocol, infrastructure, network tools, resources, utility focused projects, and even bringing more smart devs/engineers into the ecosystem. Daofin will definitely take XDC another step torwards decentralization economically, but we also need to be mindful of programmatic decentralization. Programmatic decentralization will only happen if we attract more builders and individuals that care about the network enough to enhance it.
I am also curious about the actual funding process. Would the judicial committee have control over the funding or would that be handled outside of the DAO? Once released from the ecosystem development fund, does the DAO pay out the grants or would it come straight from the ecosystem development wallet?
When it comes to the committee discussing proposals, formal or official statements should take place on xdc.dev but I do like the idea of discussions taking place across all outlets. Discussions through Twitter Spaces, Discord meetings, etc are great for interactive conversations and attract large audiences. This platform should be the home and source, but discussions across all platforms can bring more attention to initiatives.