Draft Proposal - Governance Process and Proposal Format


  • Finesseboi


  • DAO
  • Quorum


  • Implement standard operating procedures for governance


  • Goals of a Good Governance Process:
  • Make good decisions
  • Governance process should be transparent and clear.
  • Encourage contribution and involvement.
  • Make sure opposing views can be heard and considered
  • Make sure a proposal is technically feasible
  • Keep the governance process moving and free of gridlock


  • Opportunity
    • Proposals will be standardized and decision making can be more effective.
    • Increased Transparency and increased accessibility to “informed” Governance
  • Risk
    • Opinions that are worth less than their voting weight can have a bigger influence.


*Implement format below as standard/required proposal format

  • Authors
  • Glossary
  • Summary
  • Rationale
  • Effect
    • Opportunity
    • Risk
  • Specifications
    • Explanation of process behind implementing proposed objective
  • Funding request (y/n)
  • Proposed points of discussion
  • Notes on required Quantity and time for Quorum
    • Where to discuss and requirements prior to official proposal
    • Where and how to vote

*Implement a standard Governance Process

  • What requires proposals/what doesn’t
  • Discord
    • Gauging for Opinion/Ideas
  • Discourse
    • Write a concise title and understandable (aka non-tech/eli-5) summary.
    • Formulate clear for and against positions for binary proposals, or a scale of options with an “Against” option for numerically based proposal. Try to get proposals down to the minimum amount of options
    • Include a poll to measure sentiment (public, results on vote).
    • Don’t rush submitting a snapshot proposal, keep discussion going for at least 3 days.
    • Stick to proposal format
    • Discussing proposed points
    • Refining
    • Final Draft (if first is a draft)
      • Proposal + Poll (Quorum required)
  • Snapshot
    • Submission Requirements Proposal = X NFTX
    • Quorum = X NFTX voting in agreement with the proposal.
    • Vote Length?
    • Pre-requisites: It is expected that the proposal has been discussed on Discord and the forums for approximately 3 days and “the community signals its interest.” Enforcement of this rule falls to social consensus
    • Copy and paste from final discourse proposal
  • Aragon
    • What requires proposals/what doesn’t
    • Quorum required?
    • Notes
  • If a proposal does not follow these steps, it is invalid
  • If a proposal does not get more than X votes in total, it is invalid
  • All rules can be modified by a valid proposal, but “fully discussed with the community” should be the principle

Funding request (y/n)

  • No funds required

Proposed points of discussion

  • Opinion regarding format
  • Opinion regarding process
  • Quorum details + Minimum amount to start a proposal

Notes on required Quantity and time for Quorum

  • NFTX
  • Draft, based on opinions here will refine and post final proposal to discourse

These are some additional thoughts I have but wanted differing opinions before including them in the proposal

  • If the proposal does not require modification to contract code or the creation of new contracts then the proposal is final and doesn’t require on-chain voting.

  • Code implementation costs and audit costs are often ignored and should be considered in funding requests.

  • Social Consensus is at the basis of decision making, this should be avoided but is still somewhat required.

  • Final snapshot votes should be performed as Yes/No votes. Any votes to determine weighting or distribution should occur prior to this final vote and the information obtained is what will be voted upon as a Yes/No vote.

I think Glossary may not always be applicable for some discussions. It’s certainly good to define non-standard terms, but I suspect it will often be empty.

Otherwise, I think the above process looks good.

1 Like

Yeah It’s basically a placeholder for non-standard or technical terms, but I’d rather have an empty glossary than run the risk of people not understand. Also having it always be present means it is less subjective.

Thanks for your input !

This is some govception shit with all those bullet points inside of another bulletpoint proposal, heh.

Now on topic: Looks very well thought out and believe this will work well. It’s nearly what I’ve used for both the SushiSwap & Branding proposals, excluding quorum, which is also a point I’d like to go into deeper.

Do you already have any sources and/or case studies that would give us a broad “feeling” on what “good quorum” means for NFTX? When looking at my currently active proposal and the one that passed earlier today, both got roughly the same amount of votes (171K NFTX), which would equate to ~26.3% of total supply.

This seems rather high to take as the defacto quorum on votes and I wouldn’t expect this amount of votes to remain to stay active in governance participation over time. Any thoughts yourself on this already, or would this remain subject to reconsideration each time a snapshot vote happens (we can chart voter participation to be aware of trends in our gov community).

1 Like

I think as DAO governance is relatively new there isn’t enough data to determine what “good quorum” is. I think it’s only something we have to keep track of and analyze to make sure we are always going in the good direction. I know some other DAO have increased/decreased quorum requirements based on present needs. Most of the time this means an increase , and should make things less prone to change. Overtime, when a good foundation is built, this shouldn’t be a problem.

I also think starting on the low end and slowly increasing is more efficient than starting too high and lowering over time (Uniswap). Especially if we want to push open governance. Imo we should start with a fixed number based on past voter participation and influence/effect of the decision. This could then be re-assessed every month or quarter based on previous data.

Currently we’ve had 142K ; 40K ; 152K ; 171K total votes on past proposals. I haven’t checked discourse polls but when I talk about quorum I also mention that (this is gameable and relies on social consensus). If a discourse post is heavily disagreed with then it shouldn’t (it still can) be pushed to snapshot. What would we require as quorum for discourse posts? 5 minimum votes ? at least 80% in agreement with the proposal?

These are basically the things I wanted the most insight on as I’m not confident on what could be considered “good”


That sounds like a fair start if you ask me (5 signalling votes on Discourse to go ahead with next steps, which should easily be reached each time if the step before is thoughtful discussions on Discord leading to the draft proposal).

On votes, I’d say taking at least 10% of voting participation (based on total supply) makes sense to start out with (65K NFTX voted) unless you feel differently.