The aims of the governance model for JPG are to:
See: https://collectooors.mirror.xyz
With these aims in mind we are now proposing a vote on the governance model for JPG. The following 5 voting options have been developed with and reviewed by the Collectooors NFT community. The options range from a unicameral model with authority vested solely in the Collectooors NFTs to a bicameral model with authority split between Collectooors and JPG holders. We are encouraged that others have seen the potential for dual NFT and token governance although the mechanics are still a work in progress. https://twitter.com/VitalikButerin/status/1532533086352576512
Five voting options:
Only Collectooors can make proposals and vote (Unicameral model) Pro: Very simple. Con: No check or balance
Only Collectooors can make proposals and vote. JPG holders can veto within 24 hours after a vote. Pros: Simple. Some check and balance. Con: Delay for veto waiting period.
Both Collectooors and JPG holders can make proposals. Only Collectooors can vote. Pro: Balanced participation. Con: One-sided voting.
Both Collectooors and JPG holders can make proposals. The proposal specifies who votes (Bicameral) Pro: Balanced participation. Con: Very complicated and variable.
Both Collectooors and JPG holders can make proposals. Both can vote with a weighting factor TBD for Collectooors (Bicameral) Pro: Check and balance. Cons: Complicated and prone to capture.
For all of the options, we propose the following thresholds.
Proposals Collectooors: 1 NFT JPG: 1% of circulating supply
Vote passage thresholds Collectooors: plurality of votes JPG: plurality of votes (also for veto override)
Note that JPG refers to holders of both the JPG token as well the JPG:ETH Arrakis or Uni v3 LPs with weighting factors for the amount of JPG in the LP.
Due to the 32 character limit for the voting options we designate the Collectooors and JPG holders as "C" and "J" respectively.