There have been some interesting things, both proposed and happening, in the name of ‘autonomy’ lately 1, 2, 3. Given that these happenings are resource-heavy in a resource-constrained DAO, I’d like to take a step back and get a sense as to whether we’re all aligned in regard to the concept, as I’m not certain we are at this juncture.
As the dictionary defines it as being self-governed, especially the right of self-governance. I’m not going to expand on this as it’s crystal clear.
No. We have a robust governance system in operation; we are dependent on Set administratively as they hold the keys to the wallet, thus IC cannot independently execute the results of our established governance process.
The governance process:
The process is currently handled in-part 2/3 part by Set employees (@gregdocter and @dylan) and 1/3 non-Set Owls (@Pepperoni_Joe). This proposal to add two more Owls would in theory replace the Set-Owls with non-Set Owls, yielding full autonomy in this regard. [@mel.eth’s mental-model: current autonomy score = 33%; roadmap to 100% = in-progress]
The execution of governance-based results:
In the last few days we had the addition of @DarkForestCapital and @gregdocter to the Funding Council multi-sig and the proposed addition of a 5th Funding Council Member (need some clarity here as @puniaviision is listed on the latter proposal but not the first, am I conflating TC and FC?). This is still very a permissioned system as it is a 2/3 multi-sig with 2 Set employees and 1 non-Set Owl, but it’s a step in the right direction. Until the Index Coop is in full control of community treasury assets, we are not capable of executing the results of most IIPs without permission. [@mel.eth’s mental-model: current autonomy score = 0%; roadmap: 12 months to IC control]
That’s it, right?
Yes, according to the dictionary definiton. This inevitably leads to some further discussion relating to who has the most influence within the forthcoming permissionless governance system, but that goes to sustainability, tokenomics, governance parameters, and token distribution . . . not autonomy.
This is an open question to @setoshi and the Set team, and additionally the narrow mandate of the Autonomy Group. I would like to see the Autonomy Group provide a comprehensive list of blockers to autonomy as narrowly defined and planned expeditious resolution for same following the next meeting of the group (for example, 12-months seems excessive in terms of timing, can this be expedited?). While I appreciate the thought that went into the suggestions set forth by @Pepperoni_Joe regarding a council, and the suggestions that unlocking token allocations relate to autonomy, these are operational considerations not to be conflated with the subject of our right and ability to self-govern. We do ourselves a disservice by trying to solve multiple complex problems simultaneously.