Governance House

[lee0007]

I understand it may not mean much coming from me @Matthew_Graham but I am really proud of you for making this decision, this is what leadership looks like at times.

[mel.eth]

@Matthew_Graham I’m sorry too; I believe we handled a good thing roughly sir, and as the dust is settling I find myself wishing we spoke more frequently about the things we’re passionate about; namely the best use of metagovernance power here at IC. You’re a Herculean centralizing force for change, and I react to that from a place that is core. I’ll always protect the value of what I consider to be our most precious resource; the untapped utility that comes with the assets our users provide.

The novelty of offloading the appearance of impropriety around monetization intentionality to a subDAO, servicing a broader user base and coordinating interested delegators, is only appealing so long as there’s ever any question around IC intentionality. In my opinion the guiding principle in using our meta governance powers should be maximizing value for our users, not anything else, ever, as they would not park their hard earned value with us otherwise.

As I see it, there’s a world where our DAOs both become expert coordinators and operators in the ecosystem, leveraging strengths and yours becoming one of the largest influencers in ICs metagovernace agenda broadly, and likely ICs agenda as there would be no COI should we remain separate entities. ICs stance could be forever known; “value expeditiously returned to users.”

In that envisioned world, IC would work with GH just like any other DAO seeking ops assistance, and delegate out our massive and ever increasing influence as needed. In a proposal sense IC would execute in service of pumping value into our products though integrations and increasing composability, GHs and ICs agenda may clash at times, but given the outsize holdings of investment parties, capture in any real sense is unlikely.

In my conception the best way to express the full value of anything is in the most open market, and the best way to do that is to automate it. Now I know what you’re thinking, blasphemy we need to get along and make proposals together etc. Hear me out.

If we coordinate, as Index Coop, with the DAOs that drive the tokens in our products, to any means other than technical integrations that improve the value of the indexing product, well imo that’s picking winners and that’s the methodologies job. So I’ll drive every available token with governance power fast and hard toward hands-off product utility improvement; absent that monetization, and if that’s via your maas dao so be it. If it’s Paladin so be it. Personally I don’t believe IC as a DAO should be coordinating metagovernance proposals in-house, but only because I don’t think IC DAO should be in the business of proposing broadly as that’s unique to Aave, presently.

In effect, I think we’re still having the same conversation through time . . .

@mel.eth

Thanks to all who attended the AMA; your feedback was incredible! @anthonyb.eth and I will endeavor to bake it in to make this whole thing better.

recording

0:00-2:00 Intro
2:00-20:00 Context-building (existing/proposed|benefits/challenges)
20:00-67:00 Open discussion

If this makes sense or seems interesting and you’re interested in contributing here at IC or learning more, please ping me on discord (mel.eth#0001) or attend the open Governance Nest meetings on Thursdays; see shared calendar for updates.

Vote wisely!

cc/: @oneski22 @funkmasterflex @Matthew_Graham @puncar @JMoss @overanalyser ++

. . . and dragging this poor dao along roughly has been our legacy to date. I’m ashamed of where we stand given how I feel about you and the power of governance. We’ve been communicating badly, I want to take the most effective steps to correct that; please let me know your thoughts on what a good regular touchpoint for IC and GH would look like while we’re in the formation phase for GH.

I’ll commit to doing the diligence required to understand your venture, and make the best recommendations I can to IC about how safe and effective a partnership will be. If GH still wishes to become a subDAO, I’ll work with you in scoping out some ongoing but not unbound delegations such as Aave; again if there’s a better way to express the value of that delegation in the future I’m going to advocate for it and need to be able to pull it back to IC cleanly, so please don’t make any representations around GH access to IC product voting power delegations until we can get an agreement in place.

I’ll try and keep comms high, but Matt, we’ve served together here for some time and you know this could easily be construed as an attack on the Governance Nest given the actions taken, and while I’m assuming positive intent there’s just no reason why someone as high context in metagov operational strategy as yourself would feel the need to get quite far down the path of planning, including recruiting a dao contributor base that’s over half IC active overlap, and then simultaneously propose and request delegations without once dropping into any if the very public meetings we’ve had to discuss governance since September of ‘21 if the intention is/was to work in a positive-sum manner with this DAO as it’s currently formed. If this is a matter of personalities, let’s address it, but when I have finance things to address I address them with you; if I accumulate influence and run an IIP that massively impacts DAO operations, well then we’re having a different/disruptive conversation.

I’ll try as hard as possible to make sure you’re afforded the best platform to interface with IC in this way to scope out GH; either way we’re going to be working together for a very long time and I want that to be as positive as possible; I’ll continue to ensure it is for our users and community as long as I’m here.