Thanks everyone for your patience on this. Voting NO and taking the extra time to seek alignment on the best path forward was a responsible choice and hopefully we can use that opportunity to find clearer consensus and the legitimacy that comes along with it.
In that spirit, we want to outline the next steps that we would propose to move towards the changes to governance.
Step 1: Discuss representation and our governance identity.
The discussions revealed some concerns about a move away from a strictly 1 person 1 vote system, and having different types of representation such as noderunners (& gateways and liquidity providers) being represented in a staker house, or allowing anons to become DAO voters through the use of Passport.
We think that these legitimate concerns arise from perhaps some misunderstanding about the proposed system. We have no intention to move away from the values POKT’s governance has always had, like being a democratic rather than a plutocratic system, or having direct representation and participation by voters. These values would not be lost in what we were proposing, but taking time to discuss what we want governance at POKT to be, and the values and philosophies behind it, can create a shared understanding around how any system we implement together lives up to those values.
This step would conclude with a vote around a definition of what POKT’s governance identity is so that this change, and any subsequent changes, lives up to these ideals.
Step 2: Discuss weighting and parameters
We heard some concerns around different types of weighting and parameters. This included things such as vote expiry, the weight of a staker house, and intra-house weights such as how much weight supply (nodes, liquidity) might have compared to demand (gateways).
We think that these concerns are reasonable and that the logic of any starting weights or new parameters should be stress tested with full community engagement on them before entering a new system.
This step would conclude with a vote on the inclusion, and starting weight, of any new parameters.
Step 3. Enablement
We heard (mostly) strong support for the technical solution recommended within CREDS, notwithstanding the fact that the way we approached enabling it with the necessary changes to the constitution was clumsy.
Given the support already garnered for our technical solution, and with steps 1 and 2 completed, we think this step would allow us to finalise the outline of the system, the technical details, and provide ample justification for any necessary changes to the constitution.
This step would conclude with a vote on the constitutional changes and upon passing would activate the updated governance system.
We have chosen this path, rather than a rapid implementation of a slimmed down technical solution, so that the important reasons behind the upgrade are not lost.
Given the exciting phase we are in and the opportunity for Shannon to supercharge the ecosystem’s continued growth and participation, we think it would be a misstep to kick the can down the road and, potentially, be faced with making changes when they are forced on us, rather than in preparation for what’s ahead. And ultimately, if the community continues to be unable to find alignment on any changes to governance, we always have the ability to return to a purely technical upgrade.
Our ask now is for feedback and comment on the recommended path forward. It’s really important that you directly share if you disagree with this plan or think it can be improved. Governance is ultimately a consent process and it’s incredibly hard, when our direct participation system gives voters their power to help guide the project, to take silence as anything other than consent.