The RARI governance process is in the process of changing. Currently, the Rarible team submits proposals that are deemed worthy to “core” on snapshot ( https://snapshot.org/#/rarible/core ). These are then executed by the team if they pass.
Very soon (hopefully, by the end of this week if the Phase 1 of RR2 proposal passes!), there will be a need for a slightly more robust process. The following is proposed:
We use snapshot + gnosis safe integration, in which $RARI tokens get direction to a gnosis safe which has a handful of signers from the community. This will remove the need for Rarible team members to execute the proposals.
To prevent spam, we change Snapshot to require a minimum amount of $RARI tokens in order to submit a proposal.
We add a quorum requirement in order to add some safety to the DAO (otherwise, proposals could sneak through the cracks)
The only other problem which is a bit more challenging is “technical feasibility”. What happens to protocols which get approved via governance, but which are NOT feasible technically? For example, what happens if someone submits a proposal around “Allow people to curate NFTs on the home page”, but there is no bandwidth at Rarible to work on such features, or there is some high technical challenges around building out such features?
In order to prevent this from happening, we should all agree that we should DOWNVOTE proposals which are not posted in the forum. We should also encourage the Rarible team to comment on proposals which are not technically feasible for whatever reason. In this case, the community should follow the recommendation of the Rarible team (unless there is a developer or team that steps up of course!).
We should also require a minimum 5 day period on proposals in order for them to be considered valid. Maybe there is a way to make this a requirement in Snapshot.
Making these changes will achieve the following:
- Allow the community to manage the Rarible DAO funds (point 1.)
- Ensure only good proposals be considered for voting (point 4.)
- Ensure a certain amount of security so that proposals don’t sneak by (points 5. and 3.)
- Ensure that there is less spam (point 2.)
Next steps would be A) finding community members interested in being signers on the gnosis safe. Anyone interested? and B) investigate making changes to Snapshot to achieve 2. 3. and possibly 5. (this has already started!). 4. can be dealt with hopefully by having the right kind of culture and reinforcing the desired behavior.