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

[trial0r]

Agreed / voted / thank you / gm.

[NittyB]

Voted - Great proposal!

We should probably have a channel in Discord that announces various proposals up for a vote. Same goes with the official Twitter handle.

[Hierux]

@NittyB

We should probably have a channel in Discord that announces various proposals up for a vote. Same goes with the official Twitter handle.

Agreed! Directing the community’s attention toward these votes will be important moving forward. You’re a moderator in Discord, correct? Could you (or fellow mods) help set this up for LIP-1 - it would go a long way toward increasing visibility.

[ali]

Sounds good.
10% of eligible voters is too small imo like some people mentioned before.

[Loot-PlayStation]

real nice proposal, I think this should have been done real quick

[NFTWiki]

I’ve done my part, voted. And good proposal indeed!

[tracheopteryx]

@Hierux

Voting details

As noted by @tracheopteryx above, because this is a special circumstance and we are attempting to establish legitimacy of the community voting process, the Snapshot vote requirements will deviate slightly from those in the proposal to require a higher quorum:

• Quorum of 1,555 total votes (~20% of Loot currently in existence)
• Majority approval (>51%) for adopting the LIP framework
• Vote is open for 4 days, ending September 15th 16:00 GMT

Just a reminder that a high quorum was set for this vote and we still need like 900 yes votes. It’s a boring, procedural vote and not sexy at all – but it’s important, so please do vote!

[seanmc]

I really like this proposal, but would like to see 2 things built on it:

• Further definition and scoping of what the moderator team is and how it is managed: this LIP places a massive amount of power into the moderators of this forums’ hands and there has not been a process for the current mods to become such to this point, and there isn’t one outlined in the proposal. For the process to be legitimate I think it is really important to ensure that the moderator team is accountable to the community and that who is on that team is decided by the community.

• I think we should skew towards consensus-level voting instead of majoritarian. The bar for the community to officially do something I think should be higher than 50%, would like to see it at 75% or 85% with quorum requirements being at least 20%, meaning that decisions are verifiably opt-in/can actually be argued to have the backing of the community rather than just whales or a particularly active subset of holders. For a project whose foundation is simplicity, I’d argue that it’s important for any fundamental changes to the base building blocks to be thoroughly considered and agreed upon by the community.

[Hierux]

It looks like we’re on target to pass with quorum. Thanks all for your constructive input and participation throughout the process - I think this is a critical first step toward aligning the Loot community and I’m looking forward to what we can build moving forward.

@seanmc

For the process to be legitimate I think it is really important to ensure that the moderator team is accountable to the community

@seanmc brings up a fair point about the potential concentration of power in a moderation team. In order for the LIP process to work in an orderly and consistent way, we will need assistance from our forum moderators to help curate and move discussions from informal forum posts, to formal proposals, and (in some cases) assist with creating Snapshot votes.

My hope was that the LIP process would be light weight in its initial implementation - simply creating a structure for where proposals should live in the forums and how they advance to snapshot vote. In this model the moderators are facilitators rather than gatekeepers. I think it’s important that we maintain as much of Dom’s original “decentralized-first” ethos as possible.

At this time I am personally hesitant to layer on additional governance structure that defines any sort of official election process for the moderation team. However, if there are strong concerns we should continue to unpack this. This could very well become a seed for another fruitful proposal and community discussion.

[seanmc]

@Hierux

In this model the moderators are facilitators rather than gatekeepers. I think it’s important that we maintain as much of Dom’s original “decentralized-first” ethos as possible.

This sounds great and didn’t mean to accuse otherwise, just the below part of the LIP was the main centralized bottleneck I was concerned about because it effectively does place moderators as gatekeepers.

@Hierux

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.

Even just stating what the process is if mods disagree, what the process is for someone to become a mod/how many there will be, and transparency on who owns/is admin of the Forum and what permissions they have I think would go a long way to just make sure there is transparency and accountability into how the forum, and ultimately governance process is run.

Because right now I’m entirely unsure of how the current moderators came to be in the role, was it effectively whoever joined the forum first and showed interest?

[tracheopteryx]

Being a mod is a thankless role. Generally they are people who are passionate about projects and just want to help. They often put in a ton of time and get very little reward aside from knowing they have helped.

I suggest we trust them to act in the best interest of this community. We have no reason not to. If there are issues in the future where proposals are not being facilitated we can address it then, it’s non-catastrophic.