We last visited the proposal system and creating guidelines for DAO Sponsored Proposals at the start of the year. Since that time it's been pointed out that there is a small error in the wording of the guidelines, which would thus far have not changed the outcome of any DAO Sponsored Proposal, and I've received quite a few questions and concerns about the difference between regular Draft Proposals and DAO Sponsored Draft Proposals.
The purpose of this proposal is to update the requirements of all Draft Proposals so that the overall system is less confusing for voters and we have a more streamlined and standardized governance system that accurately shows the level of support all Draft Proposal have.
If this proposal passes we will standardize both DAO Sponsored Proposals and the paid Draft Proposal system to utilize the same criteria for advancing to a full DAO vote. The criteria to advance beyond the draft phase for any proposal going forward will be:
All Draft Proposals will require at least 10% of staked SPS to vote during the Draft Phase and will require at least 2/3rds of the staked SPS that does vote to be voting in favor of the Draft Proposal to qualify for advancement to the Full Proposal phase after the 7 day Draft phase has concluded.
Author Notes:
For anyone wanting a very simple explanation of what this is suggesting, all Draft Proposals would work like the current DAO Sponsored Proposals are working on the site. For example you can see the two different types of "Draft Proposals" below:
If this passes they will both look and work like the one on the top going forward. If this doesn't pass, nothing will change.
To anyone curious about the "small error in the wording of the guidelines," @schachoberhessen has pointed out that the current wording is:
The burden of proof for a Community Proposal will be higher than normal proposals and require at least 10% of staked SPS voting in favor and having at least 2/3rds positive sentiment to advance to a full vote after the 7 day voting period.
Which means that the 10% "Votes to Pass" number is technically not correct because it needs 10% voting in favor as it's currently worded. My intent was that at least 10% of stake needs to vote on it and 2/3rds of that stake to be voting in favor of the Draft, as it's been working this whole time, so that they'd essentially require as much support as a full proposal. Author intent isn't relevant to what was voted on though.
Since I manage the on-site proposal system, it's not an issue for me to check it going forward manually, though it hasn't even been remotely close to being an issue up until now, so I don't foresee it being one going forward. That said, we have a chance to address both issues at once by making the process more intuitive overall.
My general thoughts are that making things simple and standardized for all "Draft Proposals" makes sense.