title: Clarification on UBI DAO rules
status: Phase 3
conflicts with: None
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.
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.
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.
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.