[Phase 2] HIP-69 The Proof of Humanity Constitution

HIP: 69
title: The Proof of Humanity Constitution
authors: @shotaro, @greenlucid
status: Phase 2
created: 2022-09-20
conflicts with: HIP-5
languages: EN

Simple Summary

Establish the Proof of Humanity Constitution.

Abstract

Proof of Humanity was born as a 1p1v DAO without any guiding principles or common framework. Proof of Humanity governance is maturing and we recognize that we need a guiding constitution. The Proof of Humanity Constitution is intended to establish a minimal functioning set of rules and principles,

  1. Principle of Sybil Resistance
  2. Principle of Non-Discrimination
  3. Principle of 1p1v
  4. Principle of Wide Pluralistic Consensus

Motivation

Proof of Humanity survived many governance struggles this year, including proposals which would ineffect break the sybil resistance of the protocol. These governance struggles are not a recent problem either.

I highly recommend you watch Jimmy Ragosa’s talk motivating a need for a constitution for Proof of Humanity. If you do not click now, please come back to the link after reading the proposal.

Observe that many of the constructive HIPs (below) historically pass with a large consensus.

  • HIP28: Update submissionBaseDeposit 99%
  • HIP19: Code of Conduct for PoH Telegram channels 100%
  • HIP45: Markdown policy, 100%
  • HIP36: Registration Validitity extension 99%
  • HIP37: EPNS delegate 99%
  • HIP30: PoH Governor Deposit Update 100%

While lots of the politically motivated HIPs were passed or failed with a slim margin.

  • HIP50: Official Social Media Groups 60%
  • HIP-49: Change of Arbitrator 48%
  • HIP 48 - Removal of Clement Lesaege 39%

Proof of Humanity like other DAOs suffers low participation rates. Typical voter turnout with delegations on is in the ~800 range, with only around ~100 users signing messages out of a total of 16,000+ registered humans.

Last year when POH launched I proposed quorums as a minimum voter participation rate to pass HIPs. I am now convinced one year later that quorums are not a good solution since this would result in deadlock.

Instead, in the interests of promoting a wide consensus amongst a wide plurality of voices, a higher voting threshold is proposed which will require a wide consensus amongst a plurality of different PoH members.

Specification

Specify the Proof of Humanity Constitution as governance rules by amending the Proof of Humanity Governor Primary Policy and specifying the amended document with the function,

function changeMetaEvidence(string _metaEvidence) public onlyByGovernor

on the POH Governor contract 0x327a29fcE0a6490E4236240Be176dAA282EcCfdF

Rationale

  1. Principle of Sybil Resistance

In light of HIP-49 which nearly broke the sybil resistance of the protocol by changing the arbitrator to a non-functional arbitrator, we require that all HIPs which clearly and demonstrably break the sybil resistance of the protocol be forbidden.

  1. Principle of Non-Discrimination

As discussed in HIP-11 and HIP-19 about guiding principles and guidelines, Proof of Humanity commits to the principle of non-discrimination. Proof of Humanity is an open, permissionless protocol for all humans making no distinction of gender, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, religion, or age.

  1. Principle of 1p1v

Accordingly, with the principle of equality above, Proof of Humanity also commits to the principle of 1 human 1 vote either voting directly or by delegation.

  1. Principle of Wide Pluralistic Consensus
  • A minimum threshold of 3/4 cast votes is required to pass constitutional HIPs, these are HIPs which modify the constitution
  • A minimum threshold of 2/3 is required to pass final phase, Phase 3, HIPs.
  • A minimum threshold of 1/2 is required to pass intermediate phase, Phase 2, HIPs.

This ensures that a vocal minority (1/4) can essentially veto constitutional HIPs while ensuring that a consensus amongst a wide plurality of POH members must be reached inorder to pass constitutional HIPs. Ideally we can avoid a polarity in governance where sides are split 60/40, but where we need to cooperate and achieve a large consensus to improve POH.

Having considered the discussion in phase 1, seeing the merits off efficacy in a 2/3 threshold for non-constitutional HIPs, the above compromise was made so that non-constitutional HIPs are subjected to a lower threshold than constitutional HIPs for effective governance.

4 Likes

This proposal has been put to a signaling vote.

Phase 1 discussion can be found here.

2 Likes

16 hours is not a reasonable time for a Phase 1 to move to Phase 2. I would say that for much much less some other proposals were considered invalid.

2 Likes

You want to show this proposal as a great change and generate a constitution that embraces all voices. It already holds the record for the proposal that was under discussion the least amount of time.
Maybe I am naive, but what is the hurry?

Also I believe that to approve a constitution we should have an approval of a majority at least equal to the one proposed to modify it.

for much much less some other proposals were considered invalid.

Could you elaborate? What was considered invalid?

The proposal by itself has been posted recently, but comes from discussions started way sooner.
I think the project is now at a point where it’s either compromise or fork. And the more we wait, the more difficult it would be.

Also keep in mind that it’s just Phase 2 so there is a lot of time for debate.

I sincerely believe that establishing this constitution for Proof of Humanity is the last chance at avoiding a fork.

We are stronger together if we work together. That requires aligned vision, with sybil resistance as our lodestar, and with the tools of 2/3 consensus thresholds to ensure that proposals pass only if they acquire a wide consensus from the community. Discouraging polarization and encouraging plurality. Moreover changing the constitution itself requires a higher threshold of 3/4. This allows a vocal minority of 1/4 to veto constitutional changes which would disproportionately affect them.

2 Likes

HIP-8 was considered rushed after almost a week in discussion.

1 Like

then make the constitution after the fork

1 Like

So do you agree could be great to have this criteria for a constitution appoval?

And, was it invalid? Who considered it invalid? Just clicked on the thread and saw no comments about it.
You made this up. There are no requirements whatsoever on duration. Many proposals went to Phase 2 in under a week.

1 Like

For the customary double standard, it was not valid proposals that clement considered valid. About regulation, HIP-5 was always underspecified, so we tend to go for common sense, which 16 hours for a constitution of a dao is not the case.

1 Like

It would be great, but it’s not necessary. Why would we lower the chances of success of the proposal, just to prove a point? Was HIP-50 self sabotaged like this? In both instances you can argue that big consensus is very desirable. In HIP-50, 40% of the voters were not comfortable with official groups, yet they were pushed everywhere

It seems to me that this shows that it is more a political movement than a search for union and consensus among the community. I am willing to work with you on a constitution that is approved by more than 90% of the voters.

2 Likes

What? This proposal didn’t even have 24 hours to debate, no feedback was even considered, incredibly lame to put it to a vote. :-1::-1::-1::-1::-1::-1::-1:

3 Likes

I certainly agree this should have a very high approval rating, considering the importance of the document.

I also speak on my own behalf and some other members in the larger telegram group that this shouldn’t have been rushed to phase 2 so fast. Regardless of content, it makes the intention appear somewhat disingenuous, even if that wasn’t the original intention. Particularly considering the debate that directly relates to 1p1v happens tomorrow.

We should aim to operate in good faith and due consideration…Especially where a consitution is concerned.

1 Like

I couldn’t agree more. For the record, on HIP 63 we had at least 48 hours from phase 1 to phase 2. This proposal that pretends to be a “Constitution” has given the community only 16 hours from phase 1 to phase 2.

This is a direct insult to all of the DAO. I encourage everyone to vote against it so it’s a loud protest against this kind of practice.

2 Likes

HIP-63 was very rushed, on a weekend, after you tried a coup with the MB and turned off delegations unilaterally.

This is certainly a reaction to that, but also many of the principles have been discussed extensively before, and the discussion about the delegations can be had here is well.

1 Like

Suddenly complaining now when you rushed HIP 69 is not very believable.

1 Like