Thanks a lot everyone for the great feedback and inputs! Exciting to see this taking more shape. I’m just going to summarize the main points that were raised in this discussion so far:
Potential risks of the MGP process:
- Reputation risk for the Coop (passing of actor with malicious intends, or submission of highly controversial/non-productive proposals)
- High workload for assessment and engineering team
- Process should not be corruptible
Mitigation of risks (in addition to what David and I proposed)
- Increase requirements to pass an MGP (10% quorum / 80% FOR)
- Increase requirements to propose an MGP (Hold or have a minimum of circl. supply delegated, e.g. 1% of circl. supply / 10k $INDEX)
- Outsource some of the workload
- Ensure economics are correct and request a service fee
In summary, it seems that most concerns are around reputation and workload. The first risk we can mitigate by having a rigorous process in place, which minimizes the risk of malicious or damaging proposals. So the discussion comes down to what are the right barriers/requirements we put in place, to ensure only beneficial proposals pass.
My personal view is that we should start with a set of “rules” that is fairly high, but not impossible. I’d also argue that the initial process should leave some room for flexibility, so that we can adjust some parameters. For instance, if we see that we’re getting flooded with “mediocre” requests, we can increase the threshold for proposing an MGP after the first 1-2 months, the same is true for the requirements to pass. And we might find completely new issues we haven’t thought of yet.
Regarding the workload, my suggestion would be to also start with a set of parameters, that can be adjusted over time. For instance, we can define the amount of MGPs we accept per quarter. If we find the number is manageable, we can increase the # of MGPs and vice versa. The same can be done with a service fee (should we implement it).
Essentially, the initial process should provide a few triggers we can tweak, to adjust according to demand and outcome of the process. To ensure that there is also stability in the process (and things don’t change each month), I suppose these parameter changes would require an IIP and can only occur every quarter or so, but happy to discuss whether this should be done by a dedicated committee.
Looking forward to the community call to discuss this further!
And thanks for this question @catjam:
The answer is definitely the first one! Passing an MGP only means that IC will be delegating to the requesting party, so that they can create a proposal (which then will be vote on). It does not say that this proposal will or must pass, it only states that the Coop thinks it’s worth discussing!
