Hi all!
It’s with great joy that I present a draft version of the oDAO charter (and more)!
This has been my top RP priority since before Atlas, so I’m very pleased to see it go from internal draft to something shared as an open draft. There’s still some more work to be done to get this over the finish line – so let’s do it! 
I won’t intro more here, as the document starts with Intro - you should read this, which is accurately named.
Cheers,
Val
5 Likes
The PDF form of the document is available on discord, but here it is in png form if you’re a forum maxi 
Document in png form
3 Likes
All right… I’m going to take a stab at summarizing a ton of feedback from the oDAO Charter thread on Discord. If you think I missed something significant, feel free to reply below, or DM me here/discord and I can tweak. I’ll try to present themes in rough importance-to-the-community order (as perceived by me ofc). I know some of my bias is absolutely showing in the bullets below; doing my best while working fast cuz yknow… I have a real job etc.
oDAO make-up
Currently
- The oDAO SHALL actively govern themselves
- The oDAO SHALL select its membership
- The oDAO SHALL hold their membership accountable to the values listed here, especially as perceived by the RP community at large
- The oDAO SHOULD hold their membership accountable for performing the responsibilities listed here
- The oDAO SHOULD establish internal guidelines to select and remove members
- The oDAO SHOULD be transparent to the community about their self-governance outcomes
Notes on the topic:
These don’t all work at once, and are not prioritized
- Desire for clearer communication about why decisions were made
- Desire for open guidelines
- Desire for clarity on who are the signers within each oDAO seat; emphasis on when there’s signers that can sign for more than one seat; some emphasis on number of signers
- Loose desire for pDAO involvement, perhaps suggesting members?
- Desire for pDAO veto on new member selection
- Request for explicit requirements on communication around membership choices and accountability decisions
- Question about why “as perceived by the RP community” is there for values but not responsibilities
- Suggestion that team should drop to 1 seat
- Suggestion that oDAO size should increase as a way to add diversity
- Suggestion to swap some current members out as a way to add diversity more cost effectively (a variant suggested that even size reduction might better achieve goals depending on the member removed)
- Suggestion to specify a size in the charter (15 was the suggestion)
- With respect to sizing, it seemed like opinion shifted a bit during discussion. Unclear if people were moved by the claim that values could be achieved by swaps/removals, or if it was that this might enable less total inflation to the oDAO (while keeping the amount per member the same).
- Desire for explicit guidelines for removal, which would make voting someone off the island impersonal and thus easier. [this got 7 thumbs up, which I believe is the most anywhere in the thread]
- Desire for explicit guidelines for selection of new members
Inflation and pay
Notes on the topic:
These don’t all work at once, and are not prioritized
- USD amounts instead of % RPL inflation
- Since modeling is based on USD, why not just use USD?
- Suggestion around doing it by sending all to pDAO then splitting
- Suggestion around having guardrails “if it’s more/less than x/y, then ___”
- Suggestion around having caps to prevent any risk of protocol insolvency
- RPL amounts are better than USD
- Guarantees solvency
- Simple lever exists
- No need to trust an intermediary or select oracles
- Reminder that the oDAO is meant to be temporary, so some drift off target is only a small/temporary error in the grand scheme
- Discussion about this being too high vs reasonable. Someone posted a clean summary:
- So I think the arguments to pay more than Arbitrum are:
- price volatility
- more duties
- I think reasons to pay less than Arbitrum are:
- no elections
- significantly lower TVL
- more members
- Arbitrum represents the high end
- Some discussion around whether a ramp was needed; most of this ended up focused primarily on “total is too high” rather than the ramp itself
- Worry about re-discussing if price changes a bunch (either direction)
- Could be worth explictly calling out that “this is a one-time USD-based thing to set the RPL-based thing”
- 1 person noted that we haven’t yet discussed where excess inflation is going explicitly and that we need to at some point
Miscellaneous
Notes; not prioritized
- oDAO value 6 “act as stewards” is not well-defined
- pDAO value 2 specifies that the pDAO is just NOs with power based on staked RPL; request for some way to give rETH power (voting or veto or something)
- Should we add the current archive node requirement to oDAO responsibilities? (enough to generate the current and previous interval)
- The current suggestion is 3 interlinked votes - snapshot on pDAO charter, snapshot on inflation, oDAO non-snapshot vote on oDAO charter. 1 person suggested adding a fourth vote (snapshot on oDAO charter).
On a personal note: There have been a fair number of comments calling out the starting point as good, better than hoped, etc. Also things like talking about “fast and good” being better than “perfect and much slower”. Thank you. These comments are pleasant and energizing.
9 Likes
First:
I really encourage folks other than me to suggest things.
The ask here would be something concrete such as:
- A PR to the drafts I’m working on if desired
- A comment here with the desired change (new bullet; before/after)
- More than one concrete option and a poll
Ok, with that said, I’d like to propose a couple of things.
Note: I’m wearing my pDAO hat here. I have not run these by oDAO, so there may absolutely be pushback (or not). Even wearing my pDAO hat, I’m really trying to get to a place where everyone is “mostly happy”.
oDAO makeup
Currently
- The oDAO SHALL actively govern themselves
- The oDAO SHALL select its membership
- The oDAO SHALL hold their membership accountable to the values listed here, especially as perceived by the RP community at large
- The oDAO SHOULD hold their membership accountable for performing the responsibilities listed here
- The oDAO SHOULD establish internal guidelines to select and remove members
- The oDAO SHOULD be transparent to the community about their self-governance outcomes
Proposal
- Each oDAO member SHALL openly communicate information about their signers
- This MUST include if there is one signer or multiple
- This MUST note any close relationships with other oDAO seats. This includes but is not limited to signers able to sign for more than one oDAO seat, and particularly close relationships to signers for other oDAO seats (familial, employee/employer, etc).
- This MAY include a high level bio introducing the seat and/or its signers to the greater community
- The oDAO SHALL actively govern themselves
- The oDAO SHALL select its membership
- The oDAO SHALL hold their membership accountable to the values listed here
- The oDAO SHOULD hold their membership accountable for performing the responsibilities listed here
- The oDAO SHOULD establish internal guidelines to select and remove members
- These guidelines SHOULD include diversity to serve protocol safety
- These guidelines SHOULD highly value communication
- The pDAO MAY nominate a new member or suggest the kicking of an existing member via snapshot vote; if such a vote passes:
- The oDAO SHALL internally vote on the membership change, and execute the change if the
members.quorum threshold is reached
- The oDAO SHALL post a statement with rationale for the decision
Inflation and pay
Currently we have (see full draft for more details):
- Suggestion 1: reduce to 5% immediately, ramp to 2.5% over 20 periods
- Suggestion 2: reduce to 8% immediately, ramp to 2% over 12 periods
These were based on some minimum needs, and then the using the Arbitrum security council as a comparison point. I’ll put in @knoshua’s summary of why we should fund more/less than arbitrum
- More
- Price volatility since we pay in RPL instead of USD
- More duties
- Less
- Not elected by pDAO
- Significantly lower TVL
- More members
- Arbitrum represents the high end of security councils
I’ll also add that I personally think history is important. Not all, but some of our seats use their revenue for operations, so we should be mindful about dramatic/fast changes.
Proposal
- Use a modified version of Suggestion 2: “reduce to 8% immediately, ramp to 1.5% over 12 periods”
- In the inflation RPIP, add a bullet along the lines of “It is RECOMMENDED that the oDAO aim for ~11-15 members. The pDAO have set long-term inflation numbers based on 13 seats”
- In the inflation RPIP, explicitly note that we DO NOT intend to make changes based on RPL appreciation/depreciation vs fiat.
- In the budget RPIP, immediately approve 3 months of Dev funding at a rate that would be unchanged assuming 1 oDAO seat in the new regime vs the current 4
- In the budget RPIP, provide for annual Dev funding of a roadmap (with the first roadmap coming in the next 3 months)
- In the budget RPIP, note that we’ll slightly decrease funding to compensate for any period where the Dev team have more than the expected 1 seat
I really, really, really want to emphasize that it’s frikking awesome that the oDAO freely offered a massive reduction from the current state. I don’t really want to ask for more. One thing that seems to have come out of discussion is that we don’t actually feel the need to grow, and would eve feel comfortable with a smaller group (especially with more diversity). The above is my attempt to hit “let’s spend less” without going to “let’s reward much less than what oDAO were willing to give freely”.
Miscellaneous
- I actually don’t think value statements need to be in legalese. To me, this has enough plain meaning to serve as a discusssion point when considering members, which is useful.
- I have yet to see a convincing formulation. If someone has one, please say so. If not, note that we can change things in the future.
- I think we should add it
- I personally don’t think the pDAO should vote on the oDAO charter – our role is discussion/influence, and then pay
My opinion is to implement the current proposals ASAP and fix things in the future if necessary. Everything we’ve seen is an improvement over status quo.
I support all of your proposal items. I also agree that this is looking good enough to move forward sooner than later.
One thing that feels like it could use more exploration is pDAO → oDAO checks, to mitigate the well known centralization risks associated with the oDAO’s small size. I don’t see why that couldn’t be pursued separately, however (if there’s even an appetite for it).
I am quite ok with the proposal as is, frankly also with some of the previous alternatives as well. And very much in favor of implementing it As ASAP As Possible.
Ok. I think I have a first full functional draft of all 3 charters and RPIP-10.
I changed the direct dev expense a little to encourage the dev team to drop off seats from my plan above.
I need one or two reviewers to at least read through everything and look for inconsistencies, typos, sentences where I got distracted halfway through, etc.
3 views:
Please review and comment.
In the meantime, I’ll reach out to oDAO and team about the changes that most affect them to get a temp check on that end.
[6/11 edit - updated to 1 commit later, with clearer expense_1.md]
All right folks – sentiment poll time:
- Support moving to vote; I think this set of documents is great!
- Support moving to vote; I think this set of documents is “good enough” and we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good
- Oppose moving to vote; I have a specific issue I’m mentioning in the comments below
- Oppose moving to vote; other
- Undecided; I have a specific question I’d like clarified in the comments below
- Undecided; other
For reference:
- pDAO charter
- oDAO charter
- Inflation RPIP
- Small change in RPIP-10, which is easier to describe than find the specific lines:
- From 50% IMC, 30% GMC, 20% reserve to 27%/16%/57% – this keeps things steady for IMC and GMC given the inflation change
- Paying for 3 months of Dev team
2 Likes
I chose “Great!” because a draft that is 90% what I want, in politics or decentralized governance, is just terrific. My only substantive suggestion, which I’m largely putting forth to trigger Valdorff who gave me ample time over the past few weeks for community suggestions, is this:
pDAO constitution: “The pDAO shall prioritize the health of the Ethereum network”. Perhaps I’m projecting onto other anons, but I feel this is so fundamental to what makes us different from most other protocols that it should be spelled out and considered in every vote we make; if we are successful, this will eventually be a source of friction (ie right now, better Ethereum health means growing TVL. At some point, it could mean cutting TVL). We have an RPIP for limiting market share, but this constitution should be the foundational (if retroactive) document for that RPIP.
3 Likes
Fantastic work, thank you for all this. I support move to vote and the document is great 
I appreciate all you do.
I want to reemphasize a point that you brought up. I missed the discord conversation, but it sounds like this was supported there. I think it is so important.
Desire for explicit guidelines for removal, which would make voting someone off the island impersonal and thus easier.
1 Like
- Strongest; as first value: The pDAO SHALL prioritize the health of the Ethereum network
- Strong, before the decentralization value: The pDAO SHALL prioritize the health of the Ethereum network
- Moderate, before the decentralization value: The pDAO SHALL take the health of the Ethereum network into consideration
- Moderate, before the decentralization value: The pDAO SHOULD prioritize the health of the Ethereum network
- Weaker, as last value: the pDAO SHOULD take the health of the Ethereum network into consideration
- I’d prefer no direct Ethereum value here; the pDAO can act to serve Ethereum anyways since RP is served by a healthy Ethereum network
Variants of Epineph’s suggestion - pick your poison
Thanks for all the work you put into this (and to the oDAO and everyone else involved in the process). I think this captures the feedback really well, which is a very difficult task. I look forward to seeing it progress, and I agree that any unforeseen problems can be rectified in the future if needed.
https://github.com/rocket-pool/RPIPs/pull/54
Last call for edits; structure, grammar, typos, unclear language – you name it, now’s the time before status is set to Final. I’ve also asked for RPIP editor review.
In the vote text thread for these 3 votes, there’s a question around how many votes are needed to pass.
My initial intent was simple majority to institute. However, the RPIPs establish alternate thresholds, and there was a suggestion that might make sense to follow for the initial vote to institute. Thresholds in the documents:
- RPIP-23 (pDAO charter) takes ≥2/3 supermajority to supersede
- RPIP-24 (oDAO charter)
- Duties with no associated vote (watchtower improvement gets rid of a duty) are ok
- Duties with associated votes (pDAO votes in a new duty), the vote needs a simple majority
- Changing Values takes ≥2/3 supermajority to supersede
- RPIP-25 (inflation allocation) takes ≥75% supermajority to modify
With all that in mind - please opine on how we should set vote thresholds.
- Simple majority
- 66% supermajority to provide extra weight
- Match the level to modify the document fully (2/3 for RPIPs 23/24, 75% for RPIP-25)
This survey is only going to be open ~1 day as it’s a detail for the vote.
