K9 Finance DAO proposes granting the Chairman of the Roundtable the authority to use DAO-held tokens, such as SHIB and BONE, to vote in other DAOs beyond K9 DAO. This need arose during a recent SHIB DAO vote, where K9 Finance DAO, holding a significant amount of SHIB and BONE, realized that our ability to participate in such votes was unclear within our current framework.
Often, these external DAO votes are time-sensitive and do not align with the monthly K9 DAO Roundtable meetings. As a result, this proposal suggests that the Chairman of the Roundtable should be empowered to execute an off-chain vote at their discretion. The Chairman would ensure that K9 DAO votes in the best interest of the community by seeking input from Roundtable members, KNINE whales, and the broader community.
(2) Benefits to K9 Finance Community
This proposal offers several advantages to the K9 Finance community:
Strategic Influence: This proposal enables K9 DAO to strategically participate in important votes in other ecosystems where we hold significant tokens. By empowering the Chairman to vote, K9 DAO can have a say in shaping decisions that impact SHIB, BONE, and other relevant ecosystems, aligning with our broader mission.
Efficiency: The proposal ensures that the DAO can act swiftly and decisively, especially when external DAO votes do not align with the internal Roundtable schedule.
Community Engagement: By incorporating off-chain voting from key stakeholders, including the general community, KNINE whales, and Roundtable members, the proposal ensures that the community’s voice is heard and accounted for in the final decision.
(3) Proposal Details
(a) WHAT
The proposal suggests that the Chairman of the Roundtable be granted the authority to vote on behalf of K9 DAO in other DAOs where K9 holds assets such as SHIB or BONE. The off-chain voting process will involve collecting input from Roundtable members, KNINE whales, and the general community, ensuring that the decision reflects the best interests of K9 DAO.
(b) WHO
Stakeholders affected by this proposal include:
Chairman of the Roundtable: Responsible for initiating and executing votes in other DAOs on behalf of K9 DAO.
Roundtable Members: Will participate in the off-chain voting process, providing their input on how K9 should vote in external DAOs.
KNINE Whales: Significant token holders who will also contribute to off-chain voting decisions.
K9 DAO Community: The broader community will have an opportunity to participate in the off-chain voting process and ensure that their interests are represented.
(c) WHERE
This voting process will take place on platforms where K9 DAO holds significant assets (e.g., SHIB DAO). The off-chain vote will be coordinated within K9 DAO’s internal governance framework, allowing for transparent and efficient decision-making.
(d) WHEN
The voting process will occur on an as-needed basis, triggered by time-sensitive DAO votes in external ecosystems. The Chairman of the Roundtable will initiate off-chain votes whenever relevant opportunities arise, ensuring K9 DAO can respond swiftly.
(e) HOW
The off-chain voting process will follow these steps:
Initiation: The Chairman of the Roundtable will monitor DAO votes in ecosystems where K9 DAO holds assets and initiate the voting process when necessary.
Off-Chain Voting: Roundtable members, KNINE whales, and the broader community will be invited to participate in an off-chain vote to determine K9 DAO’s stance.
Execution: The Chairman will execute the final vote based on the community’s input, ensuring alignment with K9 DAO’s mission and best interests.
(4) Impact Assessment
This proposal’s impact on the K9 Finance DAO ecosystem is substantial:
Short-Term: The DAO gains the ability to act quickly and decisively in votes within external ecosystems, ensuring that our assets and interests are protected and promoted.
Long-Term: Participation in strategic votes across ecosystems like SHIB and BONE could strengthen K9 DAO’s influence and relationships within the broader DeFi space.
Risks and Uncertainties: A potential risk is that decisions may not always fully reflect the entire community’s viewpoint. However, this is mitigated by the proposed off-chain voting process, which ensures that input is gathered from various key stakeholders before the final vote is executed.
Metrics for Success:
Participation in External DAO Votes: The number of votes in other DAOs that K9 DAO successfully participates in as a result of this proposal.
Community Engagement: Active involvement from Roundtable members, KNINE whales, and the general community in the off-chain voting process.
Strategic Outcomes: Positive outcomes for K9 DAO resulting from votes in external ecosystems, including beneficial policies or decisions that align with K9’s mission.
This is a very good point which was raised for discussion.
I agree that it is important for the DAO to have a voice externally and use its resources to weigh in on important decisions which arise.
However, I respectfully disagree with the method of execution.
If proposal presumes that the feedback is collected from whales, community and members of the Roundtable - it is perfectly feasible for all members of the Roundtable to actually discuss it all together in chat and then vote to reach a consensus.
So I suggest to reformulate the proposal to give the Chairman of the Roundtable the authority to collect the opinions from all parties involved and to formulate the proposed vote based on those opinions which he then would pass to the Roundtable of Dogs for emergency 24 hour vote.
Current Shib proposal had option to vote for 3 days so if we allocate 1 day for public discourse and 1 day for Roundtable vote - it would still give 1 day to execute the vote.
I do not imagine any public vote will give less than 3 days to vote so we should always have enough time.
As a general principle DAOs should be as decentralised as possible and we need to avoid unnecessary concentration of power without having required checks and balances in place to oversee that power.
I believe that is the intent of the proposal. To ensure that the DAO Chairman has the ability to gain consensus among the DAO and vote on its behalf. Agreed that the proposal can be made clearer in how that can be done in an effective manner for decentralization
Question about the how: Do we have a static place/how the DAO will be able to contribute to the way we’d like the Chairman to vote? e.g. Poll in TG, Snapshot via KNINE? MonkeySurvey, etc.?
This way, the DAO will always know how a vote will take place and will be consistent any time an External DAO vote may arise.
I would like to express my enthusiastic support for the proposal that empowers the Chairman of the Roundtable to vote on behalf of K9 DAO in external DAOs where we hold significant assets, such as SHIB and BONE. This initiative not only underscores our commitment to strategic engagement within the broader decentralized finance (DeFi) ecosystem but also positions K9 DAO to exercise its influence in a manner that is both timely and effective.
The rationale behind this proposal is compelling. As highlighted, the ability to participate in time-sensitive external votes is critical for safeguarding and advancing our interests. The proposed off-chain voting mechanism, which encompasses input from Roundtable members, KNINE whales, and the broader community, ensures that our collective voice is heard while enabling the DAO to act with agility. This approach not only fosters a sense of community engagement but also aligns with our overarching mission of optimizing the value and utility of our held assets.
However, I would like to pose a few critical questions to enhance my understanding of the proposal and its implementation:
Decision-Making Process: What specific criteria will the Chairman use to determine when to initiate an off-chain vote? Will there be a predefined threshold for the significance of the external votes that would warrant such action?
Transparency Mechanisms: How will the results of the off-chain voting be communicated to the broader K9 community? Ensuring transparency in the decision-making process is paramount to maintaining trust and accountability.
Stakeholder Inclusivity: In the case of external votes that may involve contentious issues, how will the Chairman ensure that the views of all community segments are adequately represented? Are there plans in place to facilitate discussions or forums that allow for diverse perspectives to be voiced before a final decision is made?
Post-Vote Evaluation: Will there be a mechanism to assess the outcomes of the votes executed by the Chairman on behalf of K9 DAO? Understanding the implications of these decisions will be crucial for refining our future strategies and approaches.
Potential Conflicts of Interest: Could there be any potential conflicts of interest that may arise from the Chairman’s dual role in representing K9 DAO and participating in external DAOs? How can we mitigate such risks to ensure that our interests remain paramount?
In conclusion, I believe this proposal holds significant promise for enhancing K9 DAO’s engagement in the DeFi landscape. By addressing these critical questions, we can further refine our approach and ensure that the implementation is both effective and reflective of our community’s values. I look forward to the continued discussion on this proposal and to contributing to a more robust governance framework for K9 Finance DAO.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best Regards,
Toxon_1405
K9 Finance DAO Community Member
Great thinking for the need for the DAO to vote.
Great proposal. Just see the the need for clear precise method of collecting whale and community input.
I definitely see the want/need to execute voting power swiftly. However I would like to see a multisig on the execution. Currently with just 1 person my vote would be a no.
The actual action of voting would be done by the multisig holders of k9safe.eth if that’s what you mean. This proposal really just puts the responsibility on the DAO chair to identify voting opportunities or to faciliate them via the community as they come up and are relevant.
The proposal above could have been written more cleanly I think but the intention is to get feedback via a quick voting mechanism outside of snapshot (TBD) and to then use the multisig to execute the outcome of that vote. In the event there are some funds in operational wallets (like BONE being held by k9ops.eth or k9financedao.eth), these funds would vote in accordance with whatever the multisig does with k9safe.eth.
I would propose a second amendment to my first one as well:
In case there is sufficient time before the end of the external vote (e.g. 7 days) - Chairman can put those options to K9 DAO extraordinary vote on blockchain for usual 5 day period with 1 day at the front for arranging the vote and 1 day at the back for execution by multisig.
If there is less than a week at the time the opportunity to vote is identified - then to proceed as per my first amendment.
Just a fast repsonse to this, since the Dogs are meeting tomorrow. I support this, but i think i would like a snapshot for each external vote, so the DAO members can decide what the Chairman shall vote.
This seems reasonable, but I believe discretion is needed. For example, if it is a long weekend, holidays, or something like it may be unreasonable to believe that the Chairman is available on exact days / times to execute this. There is the other layer that the multi-sig holders need time to assemble to execute the votes.
So while I do agree that, when possible, a vote should go to the DAO to see which way to vote on an external vote, it is difficult to provide clear-cut lines on number of days when trying to organize people.
Perhaps the amendment should not refer to a specific number of days, but rather create a process whereby Option 1 is to do a DAO vote, but if the Chairman deems there is not enough time to do that, they execute an offchain vote
I believe holders of K9 should be allowed to vote regardless of their SHIB or BONE holdings, and should not be appointed by just one member of the K9 DAO. Maybe we should try speaking to the SHIB and BONE ecosystem about allowing a vote to happen on our portal for approval instead of leaving the decision up to a single person; That way “persuasion cannot influence a nation” so to speak.
If there is ample time - there will be a general K9 DAO snapshot vote.
If time is limited - then the Roundtable of Dogs will have to approve the Chairmans proposal.
Only when the time is super short and no Roundtable of Dogs quorum was reached - the Chairman will make an executive decision in the best interest of K9 DAO - in order not to miss out on the external vote. But I don’t imagine such a scenario to ever happen. A sudden 1-2 day vote out of the blue would be really irregular.
So I am not worried about maintaining the democratic principles of K9 holders for K9 DAO-held resources.
Letting people vote directly with their KnBone is a different matter though. It will be up to Shib Devs (or even Shiba State DAOs) whether to recognise a ‘third-party’ token as a legal voting right for a DAO as there are different security implications as well.
I’m sure once the systems go live - these questions will crop up and be considered properly by everyone involved.