This is a proposal to move 200 of the remaining 221 remaining “owner bags” into a community directed treasury. This community can vote over time using the Proposal → LIP framework on how to direct the bags.
Motivation
In order to burn the keys to the Loot contract, we need to decide the fate of the 200 owner bags.
This is currently the approach I am most in favor of, so I’m starting with this proposal.
Placing the bags into a treasury gives the community a lot of flexibility, allowing them to be directed later into one or many different intiatives (e.g. Proposal: Daily Owner Bag Auctions or many of the ideas discussed in Owner Bags)
At the same time, the treasury itself has a limited resource (the bags) and scope of responsibilities (what to do with the bags)
Specification
Here is the order of actions:
Dom mints the 221 remaining owner bags
200 bags are transferred to a neutral multisig with signers of Dom’s choosing
Keys to the Loot contract are burned
Multisig implements Compound/Noun-style treasury governance for Loot owners which can be used to direct funds
To prevent early derailing, the treasury will be locked for at least 90 days
Why use a multisig?
This is an intermediate step which allows us to get the bags out of my hands and move on with burning the keys. There is then some time to implement the system that will live on top of the treasury. Once the system is implemented, the multisig is no longer needed.
Poll
Please note that voting against is not directly voting to burn the bags. If necessary, this will come in another proposal.
Voting For this proposal means you are in favor of establishing a community directed treasury as outlined in the proposal above.
Voting Against this proposal means you are in favor of looking for a different approach — such as multiple treasuries like this proposal by John Sterlacci.
This is a good compromise between the voices who wanted to gift Dom the remaining bags and those who are in favor of putting the remaining bags to use in a future treasury or as a future “Loot DAO” sees fit.
Sounds much smarter than all the other past options, burning them etc. Keeps the hype alive and gives people something extra to look forward to, and a common goal to work towards to.
I think the single multisig might be non-ideal from a neutrality perspective (who sits on the multisig?). Instead I suggest we split the bags among the subfactions that have already formed. This will
A. Leverage governance that has emerged organically
B. Empower the most active community groups
C. Make sure that loot remains neutral design space (prevent capture)
I don’t think that proposal and this proposal are mutually exclusive.
To be clear the proposed multisig is neutral in the sense that it only exists to hold the bags until they’re moved into a truly decentralized Compound-style treasury. Once they’re moved there is no need for a multisig: the bags can be directed entirely by vote (including to the proposed factions) with no intermediary.
The point of the multisig is to decouple the process of burning the keys from the time it might take to get the treasury up and running. (Although the Lootmart fork of the Nouns treasury might be good enough to fork in this case, in which case the multisig might not be necessary at all).
My main reservation is creating a single source of governance. Governance systems tend to ossify extremely quickly so it tends to be a heavy lift to migrate from interim governance structures. Additionally project wide compound style governance has shown to be pretty poor from an engagement perspective. Uniswap, Compound, AAVE have a lot of trouble getting the community activated in governance despite the huge treasuries. This is primarily a result of the bystander effect due to the huge amount of actors.
I would say the quickest way to productive and engaged use of the owner bags is to seed the existing projects/orgs that have already emerged. The longer the path between now and then, the more engagement we will burn.
Fair enough. There’s another day on this before it (likely) goes to Snapshot, so we’ll see what happens there and I will make sure to mention this is as a possibility.
Regarding the point around quorum, I think it could just be voted to be set low with a longer voting period like @Hierux suggested previously.
I agree with the other motivations in principle but also think it might be difficult to redirect the bags in specific scenarios.
For example, the “Loot Mirror” public good for L2s could be theoretically be funded for well over a year if it had one bag and decided to sell it. Intuitively, this seems simple to propose to a treasury of 200 and less simple to propose to several smaller competing treasuries. But perhaps a faction is created solely for that type of proposal.
It is simpler to have proposals go to a single treasury. Its alot harder to whip votes and reach quorum esp. if its a contentious issue.
If the decision to mirror on an L2 was hypothetically a mutually exclusive decision. Would be alot easier to talk to a faction and aligned on a single L2 than have to get the entire loot community to choose their favorite L2
@Hierux Cool with calling this LIP-3 ahead of a Snapshot vote? @John_Sterlacci I will note that your proposal is the followup proposal if votes are against.
In either case I like the idea of moving the bags to a multisig as the intermediary so we can move on with the key burn after LIP-2 is voted on. The multisig can transfer or burn the bags based on the theoretical future votes. So I think this is probably a good idea even if this particular vote doesn’t pass.
