As outlined in the CoGov announcement post, Weeks 4-6 of the ongoing collaborative governance redesign process will focus on outlining a foundational framework and architecture of GoodDollar governance and GoodDAO.
The priorities for this area are:
Define key stakeholders of GoodDollar governance & GoodDAO
Evaluate different organizational and procedural frameworks
Discuss accountability and transparency considerations
Map voting power distributions and decision flows
Similar to Weeks 1-3, the purpose of this post is to provide guided discussion questions and propose ideas that will: 1) help us address these priorities, 2) deliberate during the upcoming community call, and 3) collaboratively work towards a GoodDollar governance architecture 2.0 specification.
I. Who are the key stakeholders and what is their role in GoodDollar governance?
GoodDollar Protocol: The technological layer of governance—the autonomous procedures and technical guarantees that underlie the legitimacy of the system
GoodDAO: The social layer of governance—the system employed by GoodDollar’s stakeholders to collaborate towards a shared mission
Governance Steering Committee (GSC): Provides expertise, continuity, accountability, and operational support in establishing priorities and upholding legitimate processes for governance
GoodLabs: Currently proposes and votes on changes to the GoodDollar protocol. In the future, GoodDollar governance and GoodDAO will remain meaningfully separated from the influence of GoodLabs.
Externally-Aligned Projects: Meaningfully contributes to governance, impacting the growth of the GoodDollar ecosystem through funding allocations and G$ flows.
II. What is the current decision-making process and how might it be improved?
Challenges include over complexity and a general lack of understanding from the community
GoodDollar needs a clear, value-centric governance framework that provides a means to set goals, change processes, and measure success
III. How is GoodDAO structured and how might its architecture be improved?
Membership in GoodDAO is determined by ownership of the non-transferable GOOD governance token
GOOD tokens are minted monthly, with 50% distributed to UBI claimers and 50% to stakers of G$, which has resulted in large centralized holders
Governance participation should balance inclusivity with effectiveness, and extend to externally-aligned builders, projects, and ecosystems
I hope these ideas will represent the start of a productive conversation among all members of the community. Feel free to reply async to this post with initial feedback and make sure to join the community call on January 8th where we will discuss further.
GoodDollar protocol is a piece of technology not a stakeholder?
GoodDAO: who is in it now and how does it function in practice at the moment?
GSC: Is this steering the GoodDAO or the protocol. Who is in it and how does it function in practice at the moment?
GoodLabs: To what extent does GoodLabs set the roadmap as they determine for a large part the development at the moment?
Externally-Aligned Projects: Can you mention which projects are currently involved?
@II As for the GIP, it’s only for the diehard people who are heavily involved. It’s way to complex for an average user. Maybe they can understand it, but hardly anyone has the time to read up a few hours a week on governance proposals. Not sure how that can be simplified. Would delegation from users to something like a steering committee help? Or some sort of steward ownership model?
@III This is also way too complex for the average user to get involved. And the large centralized holders have been really problematic in the past blocking development progress for a long time. Maybe start with new Good tokens and than only distribute it to UBI claimers? Or forget about it and move to more of a stewardship model.
Below is a summary of the second CoGov community call, in which we discussed design considerations for the framework and architecture of GoodDollar governance and GoodDAO. Here is a recording of the session.
Hybrid Governance: A hybrid model emerged as the preferred path, combining broad inclusivity for high-level direction with permissioned committees for efficient execution.
Progressive Decentralization: The DAO will start lean and centralize to build value, then decentralize as the project matures and can afford the associated costs.
Incentive Mix: Participation requires a mix of financial rewards (even symbolic ones) and non-financial incentives like reputation, as neither is sufficient alone.
Modular Framework: A modular framework is needed to ensure the right people with the right context are involved in specific decisions, avoiding the pitfalls of broad delegation.
Topics
Governance Philosophy & Structure
Problem: The group reconciled two conflicting poll results: 1) Inclusive governance is always preferable, and 2) It is acceptable for only a small percentage of members to participate.
Solution: A hybrid model that balances these needs.
High-Level Direction: Broadly inclusive for major decisions (e.g., mission, strategy).
Execution: Permissioned committees or expert groups for faster, more efficient operational decisions.
Mechanism: Representation via delegation allows all members to have a voice without requiring constant, deep engagement.
Progressive Decentralization
Rationale: Progressive decentralization was endorsed to manage the inherent trade-off between inclusivity and efficiency.
Phased Approach:
Start Lean: Centralize to build initial value and momentum.
Decentralize Later: Expand inclusivity as the project matures and can absorb the administrative and decision-making costs.
Governance Power Allocation & Incentives
Token as Ownership: A token is the best way to represent community ownership, but the governance mechanism must translate this into power effectively.
Incentive Mix: Participation requires a balance of financial and non-financial incentives.
Financial: Essential for engagement, even if symbolic, as reputation alone is insufficient in a large, disconnected Web3 community.
Non-Financial: Reputation, influence, and access are also important and require mechanics to celebrate success.
Power Source: Governance power over money creation was identified as a primary incentive for participation.
Design Implications & Ideas
Modular Framework: Ensures the right people with the right context are involved in specific decisions.
Rationale: Avoids the pitfalls of broad delegation, which can create powerful lobbying groups and fail to match expertise to decisions.
Governance Seasons: Adopt a seasonal model (e.g., quarterly) for focused engagement.
Benefits: Aligns governance with strategic goals, improves accountability, and reduces the constant demand on community members.
KPIs: Define KPIs to measure governance success and track progress.
Delegation Mechanics: Explore structured delegation to trusted groups
Contribute additional ideas async in this post or TG (and continue to provide async feedback on the initial draft of the GoodDAO Governance North Star document)
Participate in the next (and final!) CoGov call on January 29th where we’ll be continuing our conversation and diving deeper into the actual tools and mechanisms that will make this next iteration of GoodDAO run
GoodLabs
Sam to share an initial spec for the new governance framework, incorporating ideas from this session, before next call