LIP-1: Loot Improvement Proposals - Establish Framework and Guidelines

We’re having fun, creating value, and moving fast. The discussions on the forums have been fruitful and we want to move forward as a community, but how do we know when we’ve collected enough opinions to confidently advance toward implementation?

All DAOs, communities, and teams have standards and guidelines.

I propose that we implement a standard Loot Improvement Proposal framework that will help guide our discussions and snapshot votes moving forward.

LIP Framework

Phase 1: Community Feedback

  • Introduce a proposal on the Loot Talk forums using the template provided below.
  • Include a poll to capture initial community sentiment.
  • Proposal author should remain ready to engage with the community e.g. by answering their replies, addressing concerns, and adjusting the proposal as necessary.
  • The proposal will remain in the Community Feedback phase until the following criteria have been met:
    ** at least 3 days of discussion have taken place
    ** the proposal has received at least five comments from different community members
    ** at least 25% of poll votes are “For”
  • After achieving sufficient engagement (defined above), the proposal author may request that the forum moderators assign the proposal an official LIP number (e.g., LIP-1234), after which the proposal may move to the Snapshot Voting phase.

Phase 2: Snapshot Voting

  • Proposal author (or member of moderation team) should create the Snapshot proposal and include the LIP number in the title.
  • Snapshot proposal should include the author’s username and the finalized version of the proposal details.
  • Snapshot vote should be open for a minimum of 3 days to provide sufficient time for establishing quorum.
  • In order for a vote to pass it needs to have a majority approval (>50%) and include a quorum of least 10% of eligible voters.

LIP Template

Summary
A simple description of the proposal’s end result and desired change; this should be non-technical and accessible to a casual community member. Summary should be no more than a few succinct sentences.

Abstract
A short (~200 word) description of the proposed change, the abstract should clearly describe what will be done if the LIP is implemented.

Motivation
This is the problem statement. Explain why this proposal is necessary or useful for the protocol. The author is encouraged to add visual elements such as charts to support their arguments.

Specification
Lay out your proposal - explain how the LIP is going to tackle the issue at hand. The overview should clearly describe how the new feature(s) will be implemented (including technical implementation details, if relevant).

Poll
For: I support this proposal.
Against: I am against this proposal.

Snapshot Vote

https://snapshot.org/#/loot-dao.eth/proposal/QmbHUUX1GZQRS7eQ9v7cZQ7J9kpEC96KLhUtkrDrufBGCc

12 Likes

Fully agreed. Thanks for organizing this.

1 Like

super useful post
what about a minimum participation requirement for votes?
e.g. 20% of loot holders?

2 Likes

what about a minimum participation requirement for votes?
e.g. 20% of loot holders?

This is certainly possible. At least up-front, without any official framework in place, I would simply like to see us start to build the pattern of discussion, formal proposal (with community response), and then snapshot vote. I think that would be a large and immediate improvement.

Once we have more formal governance structures in place you’re absolutely right - it likely makes sense to enforce a minimum participation requirement before implementing proposals.

1 Like

yeah, absolutely, that’s why i first posted a discussion without spamming the voting board

1 Like

100% agree with this proposal. Especially if we’re going to start building a treasury but, even if we’re not, we are a group of people trying to organize on the internet. We need a framework to organize our collective decision-making.

The OlympusDAO templates (which are similar to a number of other DAO templates and frameworks) are tried and true. Let’s start also creating different sub-forums for general discussion vs. proposals. We should have general discussions in the general forum (often pre-LIP stage) and actual formal proposals with the LIP template in the proposal forum.

1 Like

Thanks for taking this up. Much needed process to lead, oraganize and make governance transparent.

What do you believe you need to put this up for vote and to get community buy-in? Will support you on this 100%

1 Like

I love this idea. Much needed process

1 Like

Let’s ship it. Zero disagrees.

1 Like

Undeniably, It will be better that.

Happy to ship it. We need a couple things to kick this off.

  1. Forum mods will need to create a new forum topic “Proposals” or a new section in the forums specifically for LIP proposals.

  2. We need someone with a proposal to be the first out of the gate and implement the new template as “LIP-1”.

Agreed. Frameworks like this benefit from simplicity - this pattern is already common and familiar.

Note: I reached out to @dragonarian on Discord. They plan to discuss internally with the moderation team around how best to implement.

1 Like

Bumping this (bad behavior, don’t follow) because I agree it’s an important first step and would like for us to have a bit more conversation about it.

4 Likes

Solid proposal. The most important thing this community needs to do right now is formalize a voting process to establish the legitimacy of Loot-holders decision-making powers.

In addition, the governance scope needs to be clarified: what does this DAO actually control? To me, that’s just the Loot contract. That’s it.

Some small tweaks I’d suggest from our experience at yearn:

  • there are two phases, signaling and binding (you have these, just naming them)
  • don’t give LIP numbers for the signaling phase, just title them [Proposal] blah blah that way only binding proposals will be numbered and you wont have gaps (when signaling fails)
  • require at least 25% voting for during signaling phase in addition to at least 5 posts by unique members
  • have forum admins responsible for issuing LIP numbers (pedantic, but with the speed of things, it’s helpful)
  • if you aren’t going to have a quorum, require that in the binding proposal the snapshot votes are up for at least 5 days. you don’t want crap slipping through when peeps are afk

Here’s our voting process at yearn for reference YIP-55: Formalize the YIP Process

11 Likes

Great constructive feedback, thank you. The primary issue I was intending to solve was the lack of consistency and organization behind the existing proposals on the forums. I think once we have some basic structure in place we will be better positioned to address questions around the process for accepting a Snapshot vote and determining the governance scope of the DAO.

As I’m unable to edit the original post, I’ll restructure the framework below:

LIP Framework

Community Feedback Phase:

  • Introduce a proposal on the Loot Talk forums using the template provided below.
  • Include a poll and define clear “For” & “Against” positions.
  • Proposal author should remain ready to engage with the community e.g. by answering their replies, addressing concerns, and adjusting the proposal as necessary.
  • The proposal will remain in the Community Feedback Phase until the following criteria have been met:
    ** at least 3 days of discussion have taken place
    ** the proposal has received at least five comments from different community members
    ** at least 25% of poll votes are “For”
  • After achieving sufficient engagement (defined above), the proposal author may request that the forum moderators assign the proposal an official LIP number (e.g., LIP-1234), after which the proposal may move to the Snapshot Voting Phase.

Snapshot Voting Phase:

  • Proposal author (or member of moderation team) should create the Snapshot proposal and include the LIP number in the title.
  • Snapshot proposal should include the author’s username and the finalized version of the proposal details.
  • Snapshot vote should be open for a minimum of 5 days to provide sufficient time for establishing quorum (potentially requiring a target % engagement).
  • In order for a vote to pass it needs to have a majority approval (>50%) by eligible voters.

LIP Template

Summary
A simple description of the proposal’s end result and desired change; should be no more than a few succinct sentences.

Motivation
Explain why this proposal is necessary or useful for the protocol. The author is encouraged to add visual elements such as charts to support their arguments.

Proposal
Lay out your proposal - explain how it is going to tackle the issue at hand and present the action items.

Poll
For: Action taken if this proposal is accepted.
Against: Action taken if this proposal is rejected.

I’d love to partner with members of the @moderators team to further refine this as needed, as ultimately a large amount of the work in implementation and enforcement will fall to them.

2 Likes

Love this. should be top of the agenda.

Would like to see an announcement protocol in place. Discord & Twitter. (someday validated derivative projects) etc.

1 Like

@dom I’m happy to mod and create the category! Ditto on pushing for process.

I’ve been involved in governance for a few protocols and getting the community aligned on a process should be top priority so folks support the actions the voters decide.

2 Likes
  1. Quorum: Perhaps we should consider having a minimum number of cast votes in order for a motion-by-vote to be recognized. This would ensure that a largely ignored motion does not carry with something like ~1% engagement. 8-10% is a low number but sufficient to signal importance to the larger community.

  2. Restriction Against Editing: Once the proposal has received an official LIP number and is queued to move to the Snapshot Voting Phase, the original proposal can no longer be edited. If edited, the LIP number should be withheld/Snapshot removed and at least 3 days of further opportunity to discuss shall have elapsed before the LIP number is re-issued and Snapshot re-initiated.

2 Likes