Changes for Decision-Making Process in CONKlave

PURPOSE: To enhance the decision-making process within CONK by allowing for faster decisions by the CONKlave while enabling the CONKers (the CONKers) to review and potentially override these decisions, thereby ensuring transparency, accountability, and CONKers engagement.

PROPOSAL OVERVIEW:

1. Autonomous Decision-Making CONKlave will make strategic decisions independently. This includes but is not limited to, moves such as reallocating liquidity to different dApps, marketing strategies, or making significant organizational changes (e.g., add new Multisig signer).

2. Transparency and Communication To maintain transparency, CONKlave will publish an article explaining the reasoning behind each decision. This article will be shared with the CONKers immediately after the decision is implemented.

3. CONKers Review Mechanism After a move is taken by CONKlave, CONKers will have the opportunity to review and challenge the decision through a formal proposal process via Snapshot. This ensures that while CONKlave retains the ability to make swift and informed decisions, the CONKers has the power to overturn these decisions if there is significant opposition.

IMPLEMENTATION STEPS:

1. Internal Decision-Making:

• CONKlave discusses and reaches a consensus on an action (e.g., moving liquidity to Equalizer/Spooky/Memebox).
• A reasoning article is drafted, explaining the rationale behind the decision.

2. Implementation:

• The decision is implemented (e.g., liquidity is moved to Equalizer).
• The reasoning article is sent out to the CONKers.

3. CONKers Response Period:

• The CONKers review the decision and the accompanying article.
• The CONKers have the option to support the decision by taking no action or oppose the decision by making a proposal to undo the move via Snapshot.

4. Proposal Submission and Review:

• If no opposing proposals are submitted within a specified period (one week), the decision remains in effect.
• If an opposing proposal is submitted and gains sufficient support to pass, CONKlave will prioritize the CONKers's judgment and undo the initial decision.

EXAMPLE WORKFLOW:

1. Decision: CONKlave decides to move the liquidity to a specific dApps (e.g., Equalizer)
2. Discussion and Article Preparation: CONKlave members discuss and agree internally, then prepare a reasoning article.
3. Implementation: Liquidity is moved to Equalizer.
4. Communication: The reasoning article is sent out to the CONKers.
5. CONKers Response:

• CONKers review the decision and article.
• They can either support (do nothing) or oppose (make a proposal to undo the move).

6. No Proposals: If no proposals are submitted, the decision stands.
7. Opposing Proposal Passed: If an opposing proposal is submitted and passes, CONKlave undoes the move.

BENEFITS:

1. Transparency: Regular communication through reasoning articles ensures the CONKers understands the rationale behind decisions.
2. CONKers Engagement: Giving CONKers the ability to challenge decisions fosters a more inclusive and participatory environment.
3. Accountability: CONKlave remains accountable to the CONKers, balancing autonomous decision-making with CONKers oversight.

CONCLUSION: This proposal aims to create a balanced decision-making framework that empowers CONKlave to act swiftly while providing the CONKers with a mechanism to review and challenge decisions. By implementing this process, we can ensure greater transparency, accountability, and CONKers engagement within the CONK ecosystem, and more importantly efficiency.

We invite CONKers to review this proposal and cast their vote. Do you agree with this changes?