PSP-IPΔ4: ParaSwap Improvement Proposal Framework

First, why do we need a proposal framework?

Consider this unspecified airdrop proposal: it simply expresses an intent. If it goes through, there is nothing that can be done based on this, considering there is no specification: the community will need to specify the intent into a proper proposal and vote on it again.

To avoid frustrating situations like these, a common understanding of what an implementable proposal must include is necessary.

We’ll provide all necessary information to the community, that I’d like to see rise up to the occasion! Not only can you get involved in the establishment of the PSPIP, but doing so will also help you develop critical expertise on ParaSwap’s governance process.

Once the PSP-IP is established, the Content Producers who actively contributed to it will be able to step up to become Governance Scribes - here to support individuals and DAOs to help them write qualitative proposals and to update the community with frequent governance recaps.

Keep in mind that while the PSPIP framework must be clear and include everything needed for implementation, the challenge is also to keep it as lightweight and simple as possible to facilitate participation.

We will formalize the PSPIP with four main steps:

  1. (you are here /now) Launching the process with the base proposed doc
  2. (this week → up to the CC#2) Feedback, discussion and iterations on the requirements and how to uphold them
  3. (in the wake of the CC#2) Initial framework proposed: the Scribes can collect feedback and keep improving on the proposed framework
  4. (soon) ⇒ Scribes submit the first framework as PSPIPΔ0. If the proposal passes, all following proposals will need to respect the framework it specifies.

PSP-IP v1.0

Introduced 04/12/2021, with the help of @0xYtocin, @CZhead, @Disiaque & @Cyrille

1. Proposal Number & Name

A number to identify the proposal, based on the order of submission and name (=snapshot vote title).
Ex: PSP-IPΔ0: ParaSwap Improvement Proposal Framework

2. Keywords

One or multiple choice: Front-end upgrade, smart contract development, marketing and communication, security, PSP token upgrade, PSP liquidity incentives, PSP staking policy, parameter update, integrations, and synergies.

3. Simple Summary

Clear and layman-accessible one or two-line summary of the proposal.

4. Context

Comprehensive overview of the issue being addressed and the solution proposed (~ 100w).

5. Goals

What are the main goals of the proposal? What is it trying to accomplish?

6. Means

What the proposal requires to come to life: PSP budget, additional development on the ParaSwap product, external development, etc.

7. Rationale

How will success be measured? What metrics will be used to evaluate the success of the proposed implementation?

8. Forward-thinking considerations

With this proposal implemented, what are the next steps to consider? Does this proposal include any new parameter the DAO can adjust? Does it call for a revision of another subcomponent of the system?

9. Implementation Overview

What happens if this proposal goes through? A high-level overview of the main steps required for its implementation.


Improving the PSP-IP

This topic is open for everyone to share their envisioned improvements to the proposed framework. Changes to the framework must be confirmed by a governance vote.

12 Likes

Excellent! Congrats for improving the governance process via a better proposal template.

In addition, I’d suggest establishing social norms around the whole process from the initial stage of a proposal to its execution (or rejection).

Of course, such a template will help to filter out weak proposals, but other measures can help:

  • :thermometer: having a temperature check process (using the forum here for instance) so that no proposal is submitted before some conversation happens and a positive signaling poll gives the green light

  • :shield: if unhappy people try to spam the snapshot process, then a minimal threshold might be useful (possibly with delegation, nobody wants rich gate keepers capturing the governance like in other well known protocols) ; another option used by ENS is to whitelist people authorized to write in the forum, via a participation request form

  • :white_check_mark: defining standards regarding minimal turnout, majority rules, minimal duration, and other features of the decision process - such parameters may change depending on the nature of the proposal (signaling, executable, constitutional)

  • :closed_book: documenting all the above and making available to everyone

Just contributing some basic food for thought here!

A few random but helpful references regarding gov processes: Pie, Radicle, xDai, ENS

5 Likes

Excellent you’re one step ahead already @philh!

We need to specify the governance modalities indeed, as defining the proposal framework itself is not sufficient. I was about to share a post to host a discussion around the parameters and process, thanks for these ideas that are definitely paving the way.

I’ll ping you on the post once it’s live, I’m sure you will have more to add to it.

1 Like

Within section 9, I would also like to include a minimum implementation date. For longer term initiatives this will be difficult to give, but for configuration modifications that can be easily implemented this will become very important. For example PSP 1 is a trivial code change but the implementation date will have a non-trivial impact on stakers and mm’s. The proposal could set this to ASAP (as soon as possible) meaning that it is released once done but it could also be set to a future date in order to give stakers and market makers enough time to react.

Indeed @detroitcoder the “trial” of this framework with PSP-IPΔ1 has shown that there were questions and concerns around the implementation schedule. The one offered in the proposal (7 days max after the vote conclusion = Dec 15), made sense from a governance perspective but is not synchronized with the epoch of the staking system.

Epoch 2 ends on Dec 13, so the current setting would mean implementing at epoch 3 start +2D. After the conclusion of this vote, we’ll offer a “modulation vote” on snapshot with several options for the effective implementation date.

We definitely need to specify the framework a bit more on this front, in sync with the discussions regarding the definition of the governance parameters: Defining our governance processes and parameters

The scribes @disiaque.eth are leading the effort on this, can you sync with him to see how you would better articulate section 9 to incorporate details about (tentative?) implementation schedule with him?

Cheers and thanks for your contributions!

1 Like

Hi everyone :blush:

Thank you for your interest in the framework! With the experience of the first proposals, we are able to iterate on the text. So here is a redacted proposal for a vote. What do you think ? Let’s go to the vote ? :raised_hands:


The “PSP governance framework” is a detailed description of required elements for a proposal. It is intended to simplify the work of governance in many ways:

  • First, to minimize as much as possible incomplete proposals that will require additional informations.
  • Then, to facilitate the participation of DAO members by providing a complete and clear structure.
  • Finally, accelerate the proposals’ implementation by considering this topic at the drafting stage.

The “Governance scribes” are responsible to ensure that the ideas and first writings of the communities are in adequacy with the framework. In this sense, they are an accompaniment to the writing process, but they don’t take ownership of a proposal, which remains the property of its first writer.

After several iterations following the experience of the first proposals, this framework is submitted to the PSP DAO for approval. If the proposal is accepted, it immediately standardizes the way future proposals will be written.

1. Proposal Number & Name

A number to identify the proposal, based on the order of submission and name (= snapshot vote title).
Ex: PSP-IPΔ0: ParaSwap Improvement Proposal Framework

2. Keywords

One or multiple choice: Front-end upgrade, smart contract development, marketing and communication, security, PSP token upgrade, PSP liquidity incentives, PSP staking policy, parameter update, integrations, and synergies.

3. Simple Summary

Clear and layman-accessible one or two-line summary of the proposal.

4. Context

Comprehensive overview of the issue being addressed and the solution proposed (~ 100w).

5. Goals

What are the main goals of the proposal? What is it trying to accomplish?

6. Means

What the proposal requires to come to life: PSP budget, additional development on the ParaSwap product, external development, etc.

7. Metrics

How will success be measured? What metrics will be used to evaluate the success of the proposed implementation?

8. Forward-thinking considerations

With this proposal implemented, what are the next steps to consider? Does this proposal include any new parameter the DAO can adjust? Does it call for a revision of another subcomponent of the system?

9. Implementation overview

What happens if this proposal goes through? A high-level overview of the main steps required for its implementation. A deadline can be added for the implementation

10. Voting options

What options will be voted on? For closed proposals, the classic options are “For”, “Against” and “Abstain”.

4 Likes

Awesome! I missed the post, but I won’t miss the vote :wink:

The vote happened at the end of last year !
You can check the result there :
https://snapshot.org/#/paraswap-dao.eth/proposal/0x67d6bd72b0ff6be87a80830caa663efd64e93c44af782c01e8e5a60699deb4c2

You can check the status of the proposal just below its title.

1 Like

oops i got confused with PSP-IPΔ6 :slight_smile:

1 Like