The previous DAO vote gave the K9 Finance DAO Management Council a 90-day discretionary period to adjust Bonecrusher protocol settings including fees and rewards.
Within that proposal, there was an obligation to have a process in place after the 90 days for the DAO to manage these settings.
This is a call to action for the community to comment on how these settings should be managed after the 90 days; before being included in a formal DAO proposal.
The 90 days will expire December 18th.
There is a willingness to decentralize this process even further, but an awareness that decentralization comes with the drawback of less agility. Therefore, the DAO is requesting community comments to give input on establishing a formal process that extends beyond December 18th
I personally vote for agility… While I do understand the need to be more decentralized, the ability to counter attacks, rugpulls and hacks is more important to me in 2024.
From the outside looking in, decentralization is always better. Although, once you actually gain trust in a project like k9 you can begin to trust the team and process more. The way I see it… If I cant trust a project like k9, I cant trust any project at all.
I have faith and confidence enough in this team that keeping the keys to agilty is priority. Countering malicious problems and evolving with market trends takes precedence over decentralization to me.
Honestly I’m not sure how this would work but this is an idea.
Tiered Decision-Making Process:
• Every 90 or 120 days (depending on volume), the DAO holds a formal voting period where community members vote on:
• Fee adjustments
• Reward distribution changes
• Any other proposed updates to Bonecrusher.
• Emergency Protocol: In urgent cases (e.g., rapid market shifts, protocol vulnerabilities), the council has limited authority to make adjustments quickly, but these changes must be ratified by the DAO within a set timeframe (e.g., 7 days).
Scheduled Reviews (Balance Decentralization and Agility):
• Set up quarterly reviews where the DAO and council evaluate the performance of the protocol settings. During these reviews, the community can make high-level suggestions, and the council provides insights into the impact of previous changes.
• The purpose is to keep decisions community-driven while maintaining a regular feedback loop for improving agility when necessary.
Fee and Reward Adjustments Based on Data:
• Leverage analytics dashboards (DUNE ANALYTICS (or community reports) to track the impact of fee and reward changes in real-time, helping the community make more informed proposals.
• Proposals for fee or reward adjustments should include data-backed arguments to ensure decisions are not purely speculative. For example, set parameters like:
• Fee limits
• Reward distribution caps (e.g., max 95% for KNINE stakers)
• Set locking periods or caps on how much can be staked for rewards.
Incentivize Participation:
• To keep community engagement high, the DAO can reward active members who propose well-thought-out solutions or who regularly participate in voting. This could be done through:
• Bonus staking rewards for those who propose changes that are successfully implemented.
• Governance tokens that give more weight to future votes based on participation. (Could help smaller, yet more engaged holders)
Summary -
1. Tiered governance allows for decentralized input with council oversight for efficiency.
2. Scheduled reviews maintain a balance between decentralization and agility.
3. Data-driven decisions ensure proposals are based on facts, not emotions.
4. Incentivized participation keeps the community engaged and rewards constructive involvement.
I think this solution will give the DAO a flexible governance model to handle Bonecrusher settings efficiently while keeping the community at the center of decision-making. Like Buzz said, this is community driven… LETS DRIVE!
I think there’s got to be a distinction between extra-ordinary situations where leadership has to act fast to counter hacks/attacks and a regular periodic review.
There has to be a procedure in place to grant temporary extraordinary powers to leadership or prescribe exactly what powers are available to them under what conditions.
But imo for periodic review members should receive a report on current status and options how to proceed into the future and should hold a proper DAO vote.
We should not have to sacrifice decentralisation for agility. We can have both.
The management council needs authority to make any decisions deemed necessary in vital circumstances at the moment changes. Changes to Rewards …fees… etc derived from the utilization of derived data should be voted on by the DAO. I would say a quarterly review would be adequate if there should be any wanted changes or suggestions from the community.
Thank you for sharing the update regarding the K9 Finance DAO Management Council and the upcoming expiration of the 90-day discretionary period on December 18th. I appreciate the efforts made to ensure that the community has a say in how the Bonecrusher protocol settings, including fees and rewards, will be managed moving forward.
I fully support the idea of decentralizing this process further, as it aligns with the principles of community governance. However, I also understand the balance that needs to be struck between decentralization and agility.
To contribute to this discussion, I have a few questions:
What specific metrics or data will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the current settings before implementing any changes?
How can we ensure that the feedback from the community is adequately incorporated into the final proposal? Will there be a structured way for community members to voice their opinions?
I believe that addressing these questions can help us establish a solid framework for the management of these settings post-December 18th. Thank you for your efforts in guiding this process, and I look forward to hearing the community’s thoughts!
