The concept of riders is not directly related to the staking vs. voting issue because I don’t think it should be evaluated from the perspective of whether such a proposal could pass/time out, but rather evaluating it through the dynamics of how the proposal was communicated.
It was a comment on the original proposal utilizing a rider clause that allowed for the consideration of a condition to the service being provided; essentially holding the thing that the community wants — hostage to fulfilling a condition they do not want.
This power dynamic has the potential to exist when there is a limited amount of human capital available to provide whatever services a DAO may desire.
Regardless of whether or not the service providers’ ‘work’ is digitally native or not, the concept of riders has always been a tool for leveraging power within human communication.
In highly competitive environments, these riders are used as a method to balance highly contentious core issues that have the community split into a binary path through increased ideological centralization of the community members. (This subject is directly related to the Values-Based DAO’s discussion.)
The use of a rider clause in this case, becomes a negotiation tool that ensures one path doesn’t dominate another — preventing quick movements away from the declared, and always subjective core-values.
The intention of my initial comments were to explore this concept from the capabilities of a DAO.
The questions I have on this subject are:
1.) Regardless of current technological capabilities, does anyone else foresee the use of riders becoming a norm within DAO Governance?
2.) If we begin to see the capability for proposals to be public and edited before they are officially submitted, do you foresee organizations with combative core issues favor an approach that results in very large complicated proposals, containing many riders (similar to State legislation) via negotiation/collaboration, rather than individual proposals that incrementally kick the can down one path or another?
3.) Is there a way to prevent riders? If there is, would there be a benefit to preventing them?
4.) If not, how can we accommodate the use of riders through features in Alchemy, that enable responsible and transparent practices? Do we even need to?
I’m currently stuck on this exploration and just wanted to know whether this is a non-issue from the perspective of others, or if it is worth exploring more.