The current governance process documentation is rather difficult to navigate for any average DAO member. And I want to simplify that using Syncvote (this is a product I am building) - the platform specifically designed to streamline workflows, facilitate decision-making, and ensure that every member’s input is considered.
Problems:
As a new member learning about ParaSwap governance process and wanting to make new proposals to the DAO, I find that the governance process is written in a lengthy document, which makes it hard for DAO members to have a quick, concise overview of the process in the shortest amount of time.
Solution:
I’ve already made a new presentation of ParaSwap and in the next step section below, I outline the actions needed for ParaSwap to adopt Syncvote.
Outcome expected:
I aim to transition from the lengthy and tedious text to more intuitive workflows, like the picture below.
My co-founder help me has created a video to illustrate how the new presentation is better for ParaSwap to communicate the governance process and make it easier for admins to manage any future update of the process help you easily comprehend the reasons behind this proposal and what lies ahead: ttps://www.loom.com/share/dd5cf5bad929455780b6223a205703cb
Next Step
I propose to use our redesigned workflow as the official governance process document.
Next steps will be
Replace governance process docs by Syncvote’s redesign workflow (Syncvote <> ParaSwap). To be specific, the governance process will be put with a hyperlink to the workflow. When community members click to this thread, it will lead them to Syncvote interface.
Put the text and link in Discord
Conclusion:
The goal of this proposal is to improve the governance experience of the ParaSwap’s community members. I fully respected the current governance process and did not make any change to it.
For me personally, I’ve been joining hundred of DAOs since I started develop Syncvote and I find ParaSwap is an active and welcoming team, that’s why I would like to do my contribution to improve ParaSwap community.
I would also be happy to update the workflow if there’s anything mismatched or missing; or transfer the editor right for you anytime.
I agree with you that project governance in general can sometimes be difficult to follow for the non-initiated or for people who don’t follow DAO news very closely.
I also agree that the current documentation (gitbook) should be updated and improved. However, this is not managed directly by the DAO, even though anyone can submit a modification request to the core team.
My comments:
In my opinion, there’s no need to present the proposal framework via an additional interface. This framework is automatically proposed when you create a proposal on the forum. Incidentally, I’d like to point out that your proposal does not respect the framework.
In your diagram, you indicate fail/vote for the discussion phases on discord and the forum. But the only voting phase today is on snapshot.
Is the service you’re proposing free? I don’t see any charges.
Personally, I’m not a fan of adding an extra layer of governance (with the discord, forum and snapshot phases necessarily retained), but I look forward to hearing from you.
Hi Albis,
Thanks for your comment, relating to your comment, let me explain:
In my opinion, there’s no need to present the proposal framework via an additional interface. This framework is automatically proposed when you create a proposal on the forum. Incidentally, I’d like to point out that your proposal does not respect the framework. => All I’m proposing is Paraswap could use our framework to illustrate the governance proposal
In your diagram, you indicate fail/vote for the discussion phases on discord and the forum. But the only voting phase today is on snapshot => That means if a discussion is good enough it will be move to next phase
Is the service you’re proposing free? I don’t see any charges. => Yes it is
Moving this discussion to the research section as it seems like there is no need for governance intervention for this vote.
Feel free to reach out to community members on our discord for help regarding clarifying the governance framework. The docs are not mandated by governance, but anyone is free to share information to clarify the process
Ok, but what need/problem does this solve? If the framework is already automatically proposed to the discourse forum user when he writes a governance proposal, why would the DAO need another layer?
Today there is no actual and tangible metric that would say that a discord discussion is enough to go to the governance forum step (also note that the discussion on discord is appreciated but not mandatory)
There is no actual and tangible metric that say that a governance proposal discussion is finished and ready to go to vote, it’s up to the proposal writer to assess the situation and warn the community with a temp check when he sees fit.
Currently only the Snapshot phase has this fail/pass step.
How your system would represent the discord and governance forum pass/fail as there is no actual metric representing them, how do you know if “a discussion is good enough” to move to the next phase.
Finally, what the use of Syncvote redisign flow would require if no fee?
Discourse access? Discord access? Snapshot access?
Because currently, as for the gitbook, those three tools are not managed by the DAO.
Because, if there is no fee, and no specific access required to implement syncvote, you can freely implement syncvote and advertise it.
But if there is no $PSP expense involved or impact to the social escrow system, I’m not sure what you are waiting from the DAO.
I’m 100% for every tool that would make governance participation easier, I’m just not getting fully where you want/need to go with the DAO.
