Welcome to this new research section, where we explore potential improvement to the ParaSwap product or governance model. I’ll try to share comprehensive threads on key topics to get the conversation progressively started, yet feel free to start another topic too if you think a specific dimension of the product or governance model should be researched and discussed.
On top of the ParaSwap Improvement Proposal Framework - now tentatively established, we need to agree on the overall governance process and workflow.
Signaling - we already use Snapshot to vote on proposals, but we could use it to signal too or even for smaller-vote related to parameters fine-tuning.
Proposal Requirement - currently there are none, should we set a minimum bar of PSP to be able to submit a proposal on Snapshot?
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) (copying straight from @philh here who is spot on!)
- Minimal PSP voting power required to submit proposals
- Standard proposal vote time
- Standard proposal implementation delay ( can be proposal-specific)
- Quorum: how many PSP votes are needed at least for a vote to be valid?
Keep in mind that the base parameters above could have different values depending on the type of the proposal - if we deem it necessary to differentiate between several types.
And finally, once we agree on the process we’ll need to document it of course, as usual.
This is a research topic: the goal is to hear your thoughts, your fears, share about other models you think are inspirational for this discussion, etc.
Think wide and wild: this topic is here to explore and pave the way on the matter. The goal will be of course to articulate the results of this research into a PSP-IP, but there’s no rush!