Background:

There are currently three votes around what to do with the AKITA held by the Gitcoin Multisig. Each one, seemingly, have somewhat contradictory mandates. This is because there have not been standards and processes put in place as of yet that establish "what occurs in scenario X if Y", i.e. "what occurs when two contradictory votes pass, prior to execution of the first?" (double jeopardy, to some extent).

Proposal

This proposal is rather meta. It is a proposal to begin a set of proposals to set standards and processes that proposers must follow to ensure validity and enforce-ability. We should set rules for issues such as:

• Double Jeopardy
• Proposal Parameter Validity (start time, end time, start block, etc)
• Proposal Process Validity (template, forum -> snapshot -> onchain?)
• etc.

Prior Art

Yam was the first to establish a number of rules that we can look at for how to potentially impose standards for off-chain voting. Many protocols have followed since (some better than others). Yam established rules for what is considered a valid off-chain vote, specifying:

1. Start date: must always be in the future, and have some amount of time (t+6hrs) from creation of the vote
2. End date: must run for x amount of time
3. Start block: must be within x minutes of vote start time

Any vote that does not meet said criteria would be considered invalid and potentially censored from snapshot by controllers of the associated ENS. What I like about the above benchmarks for standards is that in general, most spammers won't follow the above and can be weeded out quickly and easily as well as ensuring fairness/time to prepare for votes, killing two birds with one stone.