Reflection of the past GoodDAO Election

Hi Community,

I’m Meri, an active contributor to GoodDollar Community and a core team member working with the Good Labs Foundation. One key aspect of my role involves fostering community engagement and encouraging GoodDollar members to take a more active role in contributing to the GoodDAO.

I’m writing this post as an open letter to the GoodDollar Community as a reflection of the past GoodDAO Election Grant Community Moderation 2024.

First of all, I want to thank all the Community Members who showed interest in the Community Moderation grant and all members who voted and participated in this process and election.

I believe it’s important to highlight some of the positive aspects that demonstrated the strength of the Community in this last process. These should encourage all of us to continue pursuing more opportunities and responsibilities for the GoodDAO and Community:

  • There was a significant amount of interest and participation in the nomination process.
  • Multiple international teams participated in the application process. It was really cool to see community members from all over the world teaming up in different groups to apply for the grant.
  • The final submissions received were characterized by their seriousness and thoroughness, indicating a genuine commitment from the applicants to contribute meaningfully to the GoodDAO and Community.
  • There were some great presentations and community engagement and participation in the Community Call the Foundation hosted prior the election.
  • In the days since the GoodDAO vote, a structured handover has begun between the old moderation team and the newly elected moderation team, displaying a commitment to professionalism and success.

In the other hand, in the spirit of improvement, it is important that as a community we examine things that didn’t go so well - and that we must learn from moving forward. This Community Moderation process revealed some weaknesses of the GoodDAO and the governance process:

  • There was a small amount of wallets that actually ended up voting and deciding on the election. Only 62 wallets participated in the process.
  • Community members who were GOOD whales that voted were therefore able to have an outsize influence on the election.
  • There was a significant event where wallet 0xefae6e35a75803449f6397bb472ca83d5dad1b4b, holding 17 M GOOD tokens, cast its vote in the final minutes of the election, therefore electing the GIMT team in the final moments. Only 6 wallets cast votes for GIMT; versus the other teams which had received votes from 28 wallets each, respectively.
  • There was no clear dispute mechanism in place regarding the vote having reached a quorum vs. continuing for the vote period. There as no clear dispute mechanism in place for what would occur if the teams had been tied.

Captura de Pantalla 2024-04-18 a las 18.41.05

The GoodDollar Community is based on the values of fairness and accessibility, and this result reflects a situation that undeniably appears ‘unfair’ — one wallet with a lot of voting power was able to overrule the voting of the majority wallets. Also, like so many DAOs, this vote was characterized by relatively low participation. However, these results follow the rules of the GoodDAO governance method as it is currently designed. In my personal opinion as a community member, this reflects some real weaknesses in the GoodDAO Governance Model and how GOOD token has been distributed, and how the governance method was implemented in the context of the Community Moderation grant.

It is important to note that the Foundation had no visibility into what community member the deciding wallet belongs to; but it was not a wallet associated with the Foundation or any of the past or present core contributors. In fact, the Good Labs Foundation and all core contributors publicly volunteered their intention to not participate in this vote - so that it would be a pure reflection of the GoodDAO’s decision.

What is the role of the Foundation in this situation?

First, it is to support the elected GIMT team as is the will of the GoodDAO, and do what we can to help give them the knowledge and tools to support their success. The GIMT team will assume responsibility for the Community Moderation Role, and the Foundation wishes them good luck and will do all we can to support their success. I’d like to take the time to again thank the Q-Team for all their hard work and professionalism they have already shown in supporting the GIMT team’s successful transition, and all they have done to act as a great example for the community over the past 2 years.

Second, the Foundation’s role as an educator and an advocate is to support community members in building a more functional DAO (I hope that this open letter serves as an initial first step). Moving forward, improvements to the GoodDAO Governance Model and how it is implemented is something that needs to be addressed by GoodDAO members itself. This post aims to initiate feedback and suggestions from all members, specifics about this process and the general governance process.

In my role as a representative of the Foundation - these are some concrete steps we will be taking:

  • Clear documentation that clearly delineates the unique roles of the GoodDAO and the Good Labs Foundation, and the role they play in the GoodDollar ecosystem.
  • A clear vision of what operational responsibilities the GoodDAO should expect to absorb in the next 6-12 months. The funding for these efforts will be a mix of donations from the Foundation directly to the GoodDAO, funding sourced from the GoodDAO treasury, or funding raised by GoodDAO members.
  • Establishing clear boundaries between the GoodDAO and Foundation representatives.
  • Amplifying community-led efforts to secure additional funding for the GoodDAO.

The GoodDollar community is nothing without the talented and passionate individuals that belong to it. Thank you all again for your participation, willingness to learn and experiment, and commitment to building a better, more fair GoodDollar community as we grow and mature. I know we have an opinionated group here - and I look forward to reading your feedback.


I consider the election not credible and allowing them assume the role means rigging is allowed cos that is how I see this.

Secondly just one of the members of the team as been part of the community. These are people do not know about GoodDollar. This is not an ambassador program where they can learn on the job. It takes a lot to be a moderator.

Lastly judging from the result of the election, it shows over 95% of the community do not want them. So why allow them moderate a community that do not want them?


Thanks for the reflection.
I think discussions for voting system here should be considered: [GIP-19] New GoodDAO Voting System - Governance Proposals - GoodDollar
Do this new voting system will solve the confliction.