An IIP is a proposal to update some function or standard within the Index Coop. IIPs can vary widely from proposing new Index products to requesting funds from the Index Treasury, to performing Index Coop smart contract upgrades. The IIP proposal process largely follows the same behavior as Ethereum’s EIP process.
An archive of all historic IIPs can be found on this tracker.
Scheduled and live votes can be found on the Index Coop snapshot page.
How to create an IIP
Detailed below is an overview of an IIP lifecycle:
RECOMMENDED (optional): Informal discussion & sentiment check on the Index Coop Discord server or forum. This is a good time to ensure that the relevant parties (affected, deciding, executing) are aligned on the desired outcome. THE REMAINING STEPS ARE REQUIRED.
After posting your proposal. There are two separate ways to proceed:
If you wish to queue the subsequent snapshot vote yourself (1000 INDEX is required to post on the Index Coop Snapshot Page), proceed to step 5.
If you do not wish to interact with snapshot, or you do not have the minimum INDEX required. Tag the @GovNest account in a comment to the post, and request that a GovRep review the post and assign an IIP number.
The Proposed IIP will be assigned to a GovRep:
The @GovNest account will introduce the assigned GovRep in a subsequent post. From this point in the process you will interface directly with the assigned GovRep; tag the @GovNest account if your GovRep is unresponsive or if a request requires elevated attention.
If there are non-material edits the GovRep will make them and notify you.
If the proposal does not comport with the template or lacks sufficient detail to be executable upon passage, the GovRep will provide this feedback in the forum. In this case, an IIP number will not be assigned yet, and you are free to edit the post and call for a new GovRep review by tagging both the assigned GovRep and the @GovNest account.
There is a 48-hour minimum discussion period following the initial forum post and IIP number assignment, after the first 48 hours, the proposal may be ported over to snapshot. Any significant edits to the post reset the 48-hour discussion period.
Typically IIPs run starting on Mondays at 1800 UTC; however, any date that satisfies the 48-hour minimum discussion period may be chosen, it is advised however to keep the 1800 UTC start time.
Once the IIP is queued on Snapshot by the author of the proposal or an assigned GovRep. Voting should run for 72-hours once the snapshot vote is live. For assistance with awareness around any votes that might be live, reach out to any of the Governance Nest coordinators mentioned below.
After the vote ends, voting results should be posted on the forum as a comment to the original proposal.
The specification of the proposal should contain sufficient detail to outline execution. If execution status is unclear from the IIP tracker, tag the @GovNest account in a comment to the original post and a representative from the Governance Nest will follow up on the request.
For assistance with this process: Operational Governance Coordinator:@sixtykeys (discord) Governance Nest Coordinator:@mel.eth#0001 (discord)
This process is subject to change, and Governance Nest will inform community members if any new changes arise.
If a community member feels like 1000 INDEX to post on snapshot is too high or too low, feel free to reach out to GovNest in order to propose an adjustment.
Is there a process for resubmitting an IIP after a failed attempt? We’ve had multiple IIPs voted strongly against by INDEX holders which were then resubmitted for a second vote. Considering the coordination efforts it takes to get major token holders to vote, I hope we can introduce some minimums needed to resubmit.
While most IIPs that are passed are executed, we have generally had a problem with passing proposals and not following through. How do we prevent this from happening in the future? Since we don’t have on chain voting, are there types of votes that should have further scrutiny prior to posting?
I ask these questions because governance has been a major drain on resources and time for contributors and token holders over the past few months. As we strive to be a more efficient DAO I hope governance can lead the way in this area.
While there are no hard rules for resubmission, IIPs are usually rerun only once after failure / not reaching quorum. For any that are voted down, granted the author has made a visible effort to make changes to a failed proposal, I see no issue in rerunning. Thanks for bringing this to light though, we will create a resubmission framework for everyone to follow moving forward.
Governance Nest does keep track of the execution status of all IIPs on the IIP tracker, and we do a quarterly clean up of any IIPs that remain unexecuted for > 3 months. Unfortunately for unexecuted proposals, prior scrutiny is difficult considering issues that may lead to non-execution only arise after the fact and rarely before, but as stated in this forum post, we ask that all relevant parties (affected, deciding, executing) are aligned on the desired outcome.
I hope the steps we are taking such as allowing contributors to run their own proposals from start to finish without any GovNest involvement create a more frictionless and efficient environment for all.
Great insight @funkmasterflex - just adding some color from my perspective,
I had made an early attempt to garner feedback on this topic and received some ‘likes’ but not enough discussion to identify a path forward for the community. I’m of the opinion that quorum is a hurdle that should be respected, and if it is not achieved we should not re-run the IIP without a material change to the specification. In terms of a failure (vote against), same thing, I think without material change reruns should not be allowed, but again I’d be looking to facilitate the will of the community on this one; my feelings are mine and they are not broadly shared. I acknowledge this is a challenge for the DAO and have some other thoughts on how to address this; all feedback welcome and if you thing that the drain on resources rises to the level of a workshop for discussion I’d be happy to co-facilitate with you, but to date the community has not flagged this as a concern worthy of direct address by GovNest, and reruns have prevented negative outcomes in the past.
The short answer is yes, there should be better scrutiny by vote-type (and there is in the case of Product IIPs). The drain you mention (I’d call it waste - it takes mental capital to decide and facilitate, but is wasted when execution isn’t favorable or possible) has historically been addressed by a sunsetting IIP; however I agree that accountability on execution has not been fully owned to date by any Nest - we’ve taken the tack to date that information and awareness through sunsetting is an approach that works, but isn’t ideal. One idea we had was having something like a ‘signoff’ by the relevant parties that @sixtykeys mentioned in his response (affected and executing, as deciding is the token vote and proposal is foregone at that stage). The other idea is having increasingly prescriptive IIP templates by decision type as we’ve seen with Product Launch and Seasonal Proposal; but this seems to be happening organically as we move from emergence to ossification in our organizational remit, but we’ll keep accountability top-of-mind and welcome all feedback on this as well. really good call-outs that hit on a ton of topics we discuss/think-about regularly!