Should we adopt governance proposals?

Proposal: Governance v2 Authors: @dropnerd#1449, @huh.eth#5761, @Lithium#2336

There are several problems with our current governance model.

Our tooling is insufficient for us to understand what our quorum should be for any given vote. Several proposals have reached consensus but failed to pass our quorum rule. This includes the original governance proposal! 3 days is too slow for volunteers to react to NounsDAO votes and slows down planning and execution. This proposal addresses these shortcomings.

Details

We propose:

Set the quorum at 35 million SHARK tokens. This targets 10%, and the authors suggest that we raise this in the future to match token counts.

Approve former proposals that technically failed quorum but had majority support.

Closing the DAO: https://snapshot.org/#/sharkdao.eth/proposal/QmdPS7cNu3X61Dsvfs1wd2rC5UTkNcHQYMHhj49N1fcoj1) Authorizing Noun Bidding: https://snapshot.org/#/sharkdao.eth/proposal/QmbCwVaKUbmUyDRFihQdWPg99EnQTW7ZV4DwSXyGZ7mt9M Listing on Sushiswap: https://snapshot.org/#/sharkdao.eth/proposal/QmT7y9h6QrSXz79PPbYftYtNvPG83ybXFSmUzxhzWKvPHw (We leave out governance v1 to prevent any unforeseen conflicts from making the governance proposal unclear.)

Define the process for adopting a proposal. We take inspiration from the governance v1 proposal. The proposer starts a thread in #discuss-proposals containing a draft of the full text of the proposal. We recommend consulting previous proposals for a format. This thread should collect feedback for at least 24 hours. This period is for members to debate and add pros and cons to the proposal. Moving to the next step requires two :white_check_mark: emojis, including one from the original proposer. We recommend that there be emoji consensus before proceeding.

Once the thread meets the two conditions, the proposer starts a thread in #vote containing a link to the Snapshot vote. The Snapshot contains the final text of the proposal. This vote must be open for at least 24 hours (reduced from 48 hours). This period is for members to approve or disapprove a proposal that has feedback.

Pros:

We resolve the uncertain status of the previous proposals that technically failed quorum. We make it easier to check for the presence of a quorum. Cons:

We will go below 10% quorum threshold if this threshold is not adjusted in time. It could be more expressive of the voters’ will if we split out the consideration of all previous proposals. Shortening the voting period will decrease the participation rate among the busy.