I propose to you a bicameral system for passing PoH DAO governance proposals. This proposal seeks to increase the value of UBI by establishing a governance usecase. In establishing a governance usecase, parties who wish to have an effect on the outcome of proposals are incentivized to buy UBI. In buying UBI to vote in the UBI House, demand is created for UBI therefore helping to increase its value.
The first and supreme house is the One Person One Vote House (1p1v). In this house a proposal is approved by whether or not it has garnered the support of a majority of unique humans. Anyone can participate in this house as long as their address is registered on PoH. Through a 2/3 supermajority, the 1p1v House can overturn proposal rejections rendered by the UBI House. This override allows the people to retain an ultimate say in cases of grievous rejections of popular proposals by the UBI House.
The second house is the UBI House (UBIH). Following acceptance of a proposal in the 1p1v, UBI is used in this house to vote in support or opposition to a measure. If the UBIH votes in majority for accepting a proposal, the proposal is passed. If the UBIH rejects a proposal, the proposal returns to 1p1v where a 2/3 supermajority must be attained to override the UBIH rejection.
In the graphic below, the process for passing governance proposals is depicted as well as the relationships between the houses.
The method of UBI voting in the UBIH has not been determined yet. I quite like the idea of a token burn through quadratic voting. The more votes you buy in UBIH, the more UBI each vote costs. This would make a whale buying a landslide victory extremely cost prohibitive. The burn would reduce the impact of whales building a position in UBI over time as the tokens they use to vote in UBIH will be burned and not returned to them. Burning UBI would also increase scarcity.
There could be potential for nonsensical proposals to be spammed and accepted by the 1p1v to force the UBIH to vote and burn UBI. Perhaps a proposal UBI deposit needs to be considered to discourage abuse.
I invite anyone to comment on these points.
This compromise between traditional DAO governance and 1p1v will make the UBI token more valuable by introducing a usecase for it. I believe that this system respects the voice of the people by giving 1p1v the ultimate say, albeit with a higher necessary threshold in cases of conflict between the houses. It is necessary to give the UBIH an advantage in close margin proposals, because there ultimately needs to be a demand to buy UBI tokens to participate in the UBIH. If the UBIH’s decision could be overturned by simple majority in 1p1v, then there would be no point in buying UBI to participate in the UBIH.
If passed, this proposal will introduce a useful and valuable native usecase for the UBI token. While I admire the work put into the Yearn vaults, the community needs to consider complimentary solutions to buoying the price of UBI. Say in governance is a valuable commodity that is currently left untapped by PoH.
Any proposal that increases the value of the UBI drip will benefit those who need it the most. If UBI is made more valuable, there will be greater incentive to register for PoH, growing our community.
The community’s thoughts are highly encouraged.