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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I repeat what I’ve said in one of the telegram groups:
I don’t see the point in reaching a political consensus rn, with the effort that this takes. We already have great probabilities of a fork. The idea of the principles and the constitution is a good one, I even agree on several of the points, but I really don’t see the sense of it at this moment.
What? This proposal didn’t even have 24 hours to debate, no feedback was even considered
Feedback from phase-1 was included to modify the approval threshold for non-constitutional HIPs to 2/3 as a pragmatic compromise. The whole goal is to ensure a wide consensus of voters is needed to pass HIPs.
Thanks, I’d like to focus the discussion in this thread on the proposal itself. The goal of the articles of the Proof of Humanity Constitution are a minimal set of principles which we have informally operated under, but formalizing the culture that we created.
The articles of the Proof of Humanity Constitution are,
1. Principle of Sybil Resistance
2. Principle of Non-Discrimination
3. Principle of 1p1v
4. Principle of Wide Pluralistic Consensus
Many democracies operate with informal civic culture and republican virtue. For example the democratic system in the USA was stressed particularly from 2016 to 2020 when many of the traditions of a democratic culture were violated, but many realized that at the end of the day constitutional protections are the only recourse when democratic norms and culture are violated.
Thus far we have operated with an informal civic culture, and informal principles of sybil resistance. The constitution seeks to formalized our principles and civic culture which includes 1p1v voting rights.
A fork without reform is not progress. It repeats a broken model. I strongly believe any version of Proof of Humanity that depends on democratic virtues necessitates constitutional protections. Democracy must be protected from voting itself into a dictatorship.
I ask everyone to seriously ponder why we arrived here, at a bifurcation in a polarized community?