Governance idea: REP holders will be senators and DXD vote for them

I know there has been a lot of talk about the role of DXD and REP in DAO governance.
I want to know your opinion on having a Senate whose senators are elected by the DXD holders.
Senators have the power to vote and are elected for a season.
It replaces the current Gov protocol but retains the idea of having two tokens for finance and governance.
The current REP holders will be senators and will be announced by default for next season.
Take a look at how successful stackoverflow governance works when users vote for resumes.


Hi @Randle, this is an interesting idea and reminds me what Synthetix is trying to do with the Spartan Council, a 7-member group that implements and executes Synthetix governance. I think this is a good model for some projects but does not fit with DXdao’s mission and ethos for two reasons:

  • Greater centralization in the hands of ‘Senators’. Rule by an elected group is an effective governance system, but DXdao is trying to pioneer a system that does not rely on any individuals, because ultimately they extract rent or tilt the system in their favor. An elected council system could be more efficient, but it is not fairer and does not do anything to move decentralized governance forward.
  • Reputation-based governance is better than token-weighted governance as a long-term governance foundation. There are important ongoing discussions about incorporating DXD into DXdao governance, but a ‘representative system elected by DXD holders’ would ultimately lead to complete control by DXD holders and all of the pitfalls of liquid token governance (Flashloans, plutocracy, short term-ism, etc)

The idea is very general and is relyng on the well known and practiced fact that investors (shareholders) have the right to decide on the management of their assets.
I believe it could be implemented such that your concerns are considered.

One possible way (with less headache and minimum change) is to think about the election as just another way to receive more $REP, where investors evaluate each candidate by staking $DXD on their resumes during election days then $REP will be sent relatively, and all candidates with a minimum $REP will become senators.

Why I think this idea is worthwhile:

  1. Helps alignment&sustainablity with introducing a new way to get REP: Investors want to make a profit as soon as possible, while managers know that balanced and sustainable development requires long-term planning, by implementing this idea, the performance of managers is evaluated by investors, while full authority is not in the hands of shareholders.
  2. Helps adoption with a positive message and create an advertising opportunity: Elections is a well-known word with a positive and democratic message. Election will be an important event in the DAO calendar that can showcase the organization in larger communities.
  3. Helps growth with more incentives for professionals: DXD holders have a clear financial incentive while REP holders are more diverse and more intrinsic and personal. Attracting stakeholders in a free election is a serious victory, which can motivate people internally to participate.
  4. Helps adoption by using a convincing and justifiable way: Collective wisdom has been and is one of the trusted methods in judging.
  5. Helps implementation by using parametric and flexible way: There are various parameters are in the hands of DAO that can control the effect of the election, the most important of which will be the number of distributed REP tokens, which with its relative reduction will gradually make the election ineffective.
  6. Helps growth with more incentives for professionals: The existence of the Senate means special conditions for REP holders, which can be, for example, the minimum number, this creates a double incentive for people to compete, and with a more limited number, ideas such as paying remuneration can be explored.
  7. Helps growth with more incentives for professionals: Remuneration is justified only when governments are elected by investors.
  8. Helps more advanced governance ideas in future It is possible to form coalitions and develop organizations and parties in the long run.

Reference : how community elects moderators on stackexchange + results

Hi Randle, thank you for the contribution.

I guess one major downside would still exist: DXD holders have no way of directly influencing a vote, no matter how long they would lock up their DXD. This creates massive uncertainty for DXD holders and I would argue that this is also the main deterrent current interested buyers face.

The beauty of the proposed approach (elected senators) is that it can implement almost anything inside.
On the issue of direct influence, consider a bipartisan Senate with a number of seats for candidates with the largest DXD bags.

Unfortunately elections in crypto often appear not as collective wisdom but rather as whale cartels. The initial idea (REP holders will be senators and DXD vote for them) gave me some plebs and patrician vibes. The priority here should be following:

  1. Provide a way for DXD holders to obtain some rep through some simple action (e.g. short lockdrop of DXD)
  2. Introduce updated voting/governance mechanism. Not only amount of REP voted for or against should be taken into account (because we have REP oligarchs here) but maybe number of voters as well (sybil protection is needed here).

Thanks for your attention
Two layer governance which the original proposal is based on, is an old/tested strategy that we can find almost anywhere, e.g. where citizens elect legislators or shareholders elect board members and in the most popular QA platform where users elect moderators.
I can not find a reason why it does not work here.
Rather, I believe this proposal is the best way to go out of the current situation while retaining the benefits of the current gov protocol.
The most important reasons are as follows:
Allocating a small amount of voting rights to investors over time, given that they do not necessarily have enough expertise or motivation to participate in tech voting, and given the cost of participating in this process, does not seem to be the best solution.
But participating in periodic elections is more motivating and less costly for investors, while creating a competitive environment for the DAO. Also it motivates enthusiastic professionals to participate. They could share their resumes and participate in AMA sessions. The result could be many exciting events that ultimately will help providing a lively and competitive atmosphere.
If this L2 gov planned properly, such an atmosphere will turn the organization into a unique and excellent one among similar DAOs.

I think L2 gov solution is a general idea that could be implemented in very different ways and become better over time.

Having DXD holders elect representatives would mean ultimate control is in the hands of DXD holders which as @Powers points out in his comment above would mean effectively having a liquid token governance system which comes with capture and centralization risks.

That said, I think the idea of elections for certain operational roles within DXdao could make sense. And possibly assigning a clear line of succession should anyone in a role be unexpectedly unable to continue with their duties. Right now certain roles like organizing the different weekly calls have been informally established. In the future it might make sense to hold elections for these and other posts. In other words, aside from how voting power is determined in Governance 2.0, I think a lot of the ideas in this thread could be important for establishing scalable DAO operations.