I’d like to take another crack at a proposal for reducing the REP of those who no longer appear to participate in the DAO. My first proposal was shot down, without much CONVERSATION. I’d really like to have a chat about this idea and why it is good/bad, and afterwards, formally propose it.
In my opinion, contributing to a DAO is like nurturing a child. It is a living, breathing, evolving thing. If you have a certain amount of influence at one point in its life, that’s great, congratulations, but if you want to have continued influence, you have to show up once in a while. If you fail to do that, your influence should diminish, and potentially even be extinguished completely.
Please IGNORE technical aspects of this idea, they are unimportant. What is important at this time is how we, as a community, choose to maintain, promote, and inspire a particular culture of participation. Additionally, this “Gen Standard” for governance can be copied to other DAOs who like what we are doing. It can drive feature requests and help with development priorities.
We want people to participate regularly in the governance, maintenance, and growth of the DAO.
One way to encourage participation is by penalizing non-participation. If you can’t be bothered to show up once in a while, your influence when you do will be reduced, favoring the engaged. No harm, no foul, but less voice.
For this proposal, the term “activity” means voting and “inactivity” means failing to vote.
I propose that we actively penalize inactivity in the DAO by reviewing activity each quarter and for those REP holding DAO members who have none, their REP will be reduced by the following equation:
Rep(after slash)= Rep(before)*Σe(-t) where t is the number of quarters since inactivity
Furthermore, anyone who has not participated in 4 consecutive quarters (i.e. no votes over a whole year) will have their REP reduced to zero. Everyone is welcome to rebuild their REP, or re-engage after being reduced to zero (i.e. they are not banished, merely neutralized).