Custom Module for Governance - Introducing SubDAOs

Custom Module for Governance - Introducing SubDAOs Introduction Hey everyone! I’m Shine, Head of Operations at Band Protocol. Currently, we’re working on implementing SubDAOs at the code level. I’d like to discuss an exciting concept called SubDAOs, which can address various challenges faced by decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs). DAOs have become an integral part of decentralized projects, but they often encounter several pain points. SubDAOs offer a potential solution to these issues and can bring about significant improvements within the DAO ecosystem. Let’s explore some of the pain points that SubDAOs can help resolve: • Complexity Management: As DAOs grow in size and complexity, it becomes increasingly challenging to manage all operations and decision-making within a single organizational level. SubDAOs offer a way to divide responsibilities and tasks into smaller, more manageable units. This helps in organizing and coordinating operations more effectively within the DAO ecosystem. • Efficient Resource Allocation: DAOs often have limited resources, including funding and human capital. SubDAOs allow for more targeted resource allocation by focusing on…

Excerpt (1193 of 8692 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Nice. Why not just do this: DAO = consumer chain

I do no think all ideas can be fit to consumer chain concept.

Why should subDAO become a consumer chain?

DAOs seem lazy. what about installing another centralized bureaucratic governance model is appealing to anyone other than those in a position to profit from directing public funds without resistance?

The innovation is in automating away central governance, not copy&pasting the broken system we already have.

Thank you for the feedback. Could you please provide further clarification on the concept of “DAO acting as a consumer chain”?

Not cool. You’re taking Governance discussion OFF CHAIN. Then implementing agreements in a rushed process which where you are well aware you will not be encouraging delegators to participate in the discussion and growth of the community. 99% of them will not even know this structure exists or what you all are doing. They won’t have a frame of reference to know this is not the way chains were governed before.

You’re just simply removing the retail or non-blockchain developers from the discussions. Nothing I can do about it, and that is the same way most of your chain will feel. Although the current governance model is clunky, we should not be appointing people we don’t know exist to smaller even more concentrated sub”Power” groups where you guys discuss tresury or grant issues off chain and then after you get it done behind closed doors, oh let’s just rush it through governance, and be done.

This will inevitably lead to a net loss in community, but Ok.

In short:

• Protected treasury
• Security for contracts
• A higher level of sovereignty
• Native tokens
• A million possibilities

Why does a DAO need native token?

Do you mean a token for voting weight, or is there any utility for the token?

The native token will serve as a governance token that can be delegated to validators. Delegators will then receive voting power for two purposes:

1. Electing council members for each council.
2. Voting on Veto Proposals to oppose proposals that have already been approved by the council.

Precisely. Thanks for that answer

Thanks for the feedback!

I agree with some of the points you raised. However, the off-chain discussion plays a crucial role in facilitating communication to ensure that all proposals going on-chain are adequately registered.

Numerous decentralized protocols have faced challenges with governance voting, where token holders voted without fully understanding the protocol. As you mentioned, the majority, around 99%, are unaware of this structure. Therefore, transparency and communication become essential in enabling non-technical individuals to comprehend what is happening and providing them with a platform to stay informed using non-technical language.

Regarding the acceleration of processes, I believe that faster processes lead to increased innovation and the growth of the ecosystem.

I had posters about this exact topic multiple months ago, and I still believe the idea of SubDAOs will be necessary for the Hub. I believe SubDAOs will be at a minimum, a necessity going forward, for the Hub treasury to efficiently allocate capital. They can be created in best practice, to encourage decentralization, however, they will allow for some level of accountability, which the current treasury lacks.

Here is the link to my previous forum post: SubDAO Treasury System for the Hub

how do subDAOs increase accountability? Until there are enforceable penalties and remidies for malicious actions there is no accountability. SubDAOs would need a mechanism similar to slashing that allows for more than voting in a different person after the fact.

I have just finished reading your post, and I truly think that the SubDAOs concept has the potential to address numerous challenges faced by DAOs. I appreciate you bringing this topic up here!

I think the opposite is the case here.

For example lets take a Grants Program.
Grants Programs are often established through central entities offering their service to host a grants program for a chain. The chain agrees or denies their governance proposal. If it succeeds they get X stake that they can freely distribute without further restrictions.

The Grants Council would improve this concept through:

• dezentralization of the committee (no central entity is needed to host the program)
• committee members can be changed if the community isnt happy with them any more
• every grant will be voted on chain through the committee
• every grant voting of the committee can be overruled through a chain governance veto

I think SubDAOs are a good Compromise of voting everything of chain and centralized entities.

@pzshine Please correct me if iam wrong with any of my assumptions