HIP-31 Clarification on UBI DAO rules

HIP: 31
title: Clarification on UBI DAO rules
author: @clesaege
status: Phase 3
created: 2021-10-05
conflicts with: None
languages: EN

Simple Summary

The HIP clarifies that the UBI DAO will follow the rules of the POH DAO at the time of the proposal unless stated otherwise.


The UBI DAO rules are the sames the POH DAO rules at the time of HIP-22 unless stated otherwise in HIP-22 or a UBI DAO proposal.


HIP-22 created the UBI DAO. However the proposal is not specific about rules and parameters of the DAO except in the calculation of voting power. This lead to difference of interpretation of the rules of the DAO which could lead to disputes and stalling the execution of proposals (as people wouldn’t want to take the risk to lose their deposit if the Kleros court were to rule against their interpretation of the rules of the new DAO).

When asked to clarify those rules, the board decided that it didn’t wish to rule on it and asked to have an HIP clarifying the rules.

This proposal clarifies that the UBI DAO starts with the same rules as the POH DAO at the time of its creation unless stated otherwise.
It’s still possible for the UBI DAO to modify its own rules.

Current UIP or UIP phases are considered to have been passed if they would have passed with the clarified rules of this proposal.


The UBI DAO rules are the sames the POH DAO rules at the time of HIP-22 unless stated otherwise in HIP-22 or a UBI DAO proposal. This applies to (non exhaustive list): Voting period, deposits on the governor app, challenge period, delegations and UIP process (working like the HIP process).
It is possible to change those rules via UIPs.


This proposal doesn’t require any coding but simply clarifies the rules for execution of UBI DAO decisions.


I think this is the most logical behavior in the case of a split - maximum inheritance of the rules from the original DAO. Otherwise, you have to specify whether to reset for every single rule.


My take on this is that we debated extensively about the voting logic for the UBI DAO, and we ended up with a Quadratic Voting model that brings a very different scenario when it’s about delegations.

The main reason to use QV was to mitigate the impact of whales in the DAO. If we implement delegations, then only a handful of participants (mainly myself and Clement) will have significant power … and anyone who dares to challenge our power, won’t be able to do it because it would require from them to buy more UBI than it exists in the circulating supply

QV should not be used with delegations on the UBI DAO because it can completely disincentivize buying UBI for governance which was the main reason to spin off the UBI DAO in the first place.

Last but not least, the implementation of the UBI DAO was done following the exact steps described on HIP 22… pretending to add steps not explicitly described there would simply be irresponsible. And personally I’d never feel comfortable giving myself that much power on this DAO.

In the spirit of keeping UBI governance democratic and avoiding large whales from having an impossible to match influence… I’m AGAINST any attempt to implement delegations on the UBI DAO.

The proposal doesn’t prevent removing delegations in the future, but merely put the burden to do so on a new proposal.
If you wish to remove the delegation UX, you can vote this proposal and then immediately make UIP to change it (this also separates the concerns and we can debate on delegation UX on a separate proposal).
The thing is that a proposal passing the UBI DAO is under-specified, thus unusable.

1 Like

So, just to clarify: if this proposal passes… we have to implement delegations on the UBI DAO in order to copy the settings of the PoH DAO?

Then eventually we can vote a UIP specifically on removing delegations on the UBI DAO?

If this proposal doesn’t pass, we keep the UBI DAO as it is?


The thing is that there is no agreement about the way the UBI DAO currently is. The board has decided not to take position and to request a clarification proposal to pass.
Well if it doesn’t pass there are 2 ways this can go:

  • Another clarification proposal passes.
  • Someone wants to take the risk and tries to submit some transactions executing UBI DAO decisions whose result is non consensual. It likely get challenged and the Kleros court would decide of the interpretation of HIP-22.

What happens with the UIP decisions already voted on Snapshot?

I’m fine following the more frictionless path possible and avoid a Court resolution at this stage.

I just added that those are considered voted if they would have passed with the clarification of this HIP (I think they both would have passed with delegations anyways).

1 Like

I think another clarification is needed:

Is the board of the PohDAO the same as the one for the UbiDAO? I would say that for the organizations to be independent, the boards are also different. For now, the same people occupy the seats on both boards, but that would change as soon as an empty seat is opened.


good catch! agreed on this.

The board isn’t part of the voting process but the fact that it can interpret DAO decisions could actually make it be.

What do you think about this?

The proposal has been moved to phase 2.

@clesaege If this proposal passes phase 3, would it invalidate the current UIP-1 and UIP-2 proposals?

So it wouldn’t invalidate them.

1 Like

I’m willing to support this proposal so we are all in the same page with the proper functioning of the UBI DAO.

Hi everyone, this got voted in Phase 2 with 100% support from 142 votes: Snapshot

Shall we move it to phase 3? Seems like we are all on board with this.


Santi put it to phase 3.