[Phase 1] HIP-77 Streamlining Minor HIP & Policy Revisions

HIP: 77
Title: Streamlining Minor HIP & Policy Revisions
Author: Tara (ArkaYana.eth)
Proof Reader/Advisor: Nicobilinkis.eth
Status: Phase 1
Created: 10th December 2022
Conflicts with: HIP-70 Establish a Minimum Period for Phase 1

I initially wrote some edits to the make-up requirements of the registration document after a recent, regretable profile rejection based on lipstick. But chatting with @nicobilinkis.eth about it, I realized we need a way to allow quality of life changes and small edits to be made to documents easier so we don’t get caught up in several stages of HIP for a simple adjustment.

Simple Summary:
Establish a system to reduce barriers to implementing small, quality of life changes to policy or previous HIPs in need of updating.

This proposal outlines a system of delegated decision-making for small changes to policy within the DAO. This system would allow for more efficient decision-making on these types of issues, while still maintaining a democratic process for larger or more impactful decisions.

Small changes to documentation can often be made quickly and efficiently, but the current decision-making process (which is effective for large changes) is a little too cumbersome. This proposal aims to address this issue by establishing a system of delegated decision-making that allows for more efficient decision-making on small changes to documentation.

The proposal includes the following key components:

  • Designate a group of trusted individuals or a designated team to make minor decisions on behalf of the DAO concerning small changes to policy or binding HIPs.

  • Establish clear guidelines and criteria for what constitutes a “small” change that can be approved through this system, and maintain democratic spirit,.

  • Review and assess the effectiveness of the system to ensure it is meeting the needs and requirements of the DAO.

Suggestion (1) Delegated Multi-Sig:
Establish a system of delegated multi-sig, where a group of trusted individuals (perhaps the new DAO roles) or a designated team is given the authority to make decisions on behalf of the DAO on certain types of quality of life issues, such as small changes to documentation. This could allow for more efficient decision-making on these types of issues, like being able to quickly improve the registration policy, while still maintaining a democratic process for larger or more impactful decisions. This differs to previous delegation strategies (which were contentious) as it only applies to small adjustments, rather than huge, impactful decisions.

Suggestion (2) Decision-Making Hierarchy:
A similar, but slightly more rigid version of this would be to establish a hierarchy of decision-making, where certain types of decisions require different levels of approval. For example, small changes to documentation could be approved by one or two representitives, mildly complex changes need three representitives, while larger changes would require approval from the entire DAO. This could allow for more flexibility and speed in decision-making, while still maintaining the 3 Phase democratic process for impactful governance decisions.

Suggestion (3) HIP Batching Revisions: Approve small changes to documentation in batches in a single HIP, rather than requiring each change to be approved individually. This could allow for more efficient decision-making while still maintaining a democratic process, as well as retaining our 3 Phase HIP process. Clear guidelines and criteria for what constitutes a “small” change that can be approved in this way should be established to ensure fairness and transparency. This wouldn’t necessarily require a delegate or assigned revisor, but it would make it easier having a single point of contact to collate changes for such batch HIPs.

We could also use a combination of any of these to achieve a balance of democratic process and streamlining improvements.

HIP Conflicts:

HIP-70 is in phase 1 and appears to have recieved high community approval. The suggestions in this HIP-77 would need to circumvent the new requirements.

To address this, an appropriate time-period for the small, quality of life changes outlined above should be established. My suggestion would be a single 7 day period for feedback and to ensure there are no alterior implications. Trust in this shorter process would be enhanced by a multi-sig approval from the newly established DAO roles, for example.

The updated phase requirements outlined in HIP-70 will still apply to all other HIPs that do not constitute as quality of life / small adjustments. I will add this exception to HIP-70 once it passes to phase 2.

Hopefully some of these are usful for consideration and discussion. Naturally if any of these were implemented, any DAO member can still challenge any of these quality of life updates should they feel it appropriate to do so, maintaining democratic spirit.


Hi there! A question to check if i understand the proposal spirit:

Every policy update needs today (at least) (1) 3 days for a hip in phase-2, (2) 7 days in phase-3 and (3) 7 optimistics days with a governor transaction. I think that (3) is unavoidable. So your proposal means that this minor changes have to pass directly through the 7 days in the governor right?


Yes for the first two examples. The third still retains our current Phase system, but batches the revisions into one HIP. Although these are only preliminary suggestions. As it stands, HIP-70 that I also put together has been ready to go to phase 3, and I have signalled people responsible for setting up snapshots to do so (I don’t have the authority to make them). I know there is a backlog, so it seems silly to have such a long winded process for such small changes if we have other proposals already waiting to be voted on.

As an example, here are the changes to the Proof of Humanity Registry Policy that I recommended pertaining to make-up policy on page 2:

Current Policy:
Neutral, soft and natural make-up without colored lipstick, eyeliner or
eyeshadows are acceptable. Any make-up product or item that significantly alters
or modifies facial features is not allowed.

Recommended Policy
“For peace of mind, it is recommended to avoid using make-up. However, neutral, soft and natural make-up is acceptable. Transparent lip balm, lip oil, or lip gloss is acceptable, but must not cause glare or obfuscation of the facial features. Simple black or brown eyeliner is acceptable. Any make-up product or item that appears to significantly alter or modify facial features, is not allowed.”

Rationalization for changes to policy:

Lipstick is always coloured. It would be impossible to decide where to draw the line. This was the grounds of a recent profile rejection, since they assumed red would be okay due to the picture on the PoH website which has an accepted profile of a lady with red lipstick. (That should probably be changed also)

Lips balms, etc are often available in clear forms, and would allow people with lip conditions to treat them.

Eyeliner can be very colorful, I recommended limiting this to black or brown, similarly with eyeshadows.

Making it clear as possible any makeup used should be as natural as possible. Makeup palettes are sold for this purpose everywhere, so the definition of natural tone in terms of one’s own skin tone should be clear if someone owns makeup in the first place.

It seems silly to wait months to make a small change like this that will reduce more cases rejected related to the makeup and doesn’t impact the DAO or sybil-resistance in any apparant negative way.

Hopefully this clarification and example helps you understand the nature of the HIP.

1 Like

Hey I created an HIP without knowing this was already in the making, this looks fantastic.