CARTEL & ONEUP Governance - Proposal System v1
The biggest goal of the @oneup-cartel is transforming from a centrally controlled entity into a proper DAO. While there are many challenges in our way to accomplish this goal, we need to start somewhere. Allowing the community to propose ideas and vote on them will bring us a huge step forward towards more decentralization.
Splinterlands is currently showing a very easy and straight forward way, how to allow the community to make proposals, with their new SPS Governance - Community Proposals v1. I hereby propose to take the best of that system as suggested below and apply it to the CARTEL.
- Send 40000 ONEUP to NULL (~$10) from the same account that will be publishing the proposal post and note the Hive blockchain transaction ID of the transfer (which can be found on Hivehub).
- Publish a post on the Hive blockchain detailing the proposal and include the hive blockchain transaction with the ONEUP payment as the VERY FIRST LINE in the post.
- Tag the post with #cartelproposal.
- CARTEL Stakeholders can upvote the post if they support the proposal or downvote the post if they do not support the proposal.
- After 7 days (when the voting period ends for Hive blockchain posts), the Cartel Management will calculate the total CARTEL held by all users who upvoted the proposal post and all users who downvoted the proposal post.
- If the total of the CARTEL in the accounts that upvoted or downvoted the post is at least 5% of the total CARTEL in circulation in the system (in total roughly 5400 currently), at least 66% of those were upvotes, then the proposal will be valid and the Cartel management will work towards fulfilling that proposal.
Why ~$10 burn fee?
The price for one proposal should be expensive enough to make everyone consider their ideas very well, before proposing them but also affordable enough to not create an artificial entry barrier. I believe that $10 is a good sweet-spot, as it is also the price of one original CARTEL.
If the price of ONEUP should change dramatically, we will adjust the burn fee and communicate that on all our channels. This will NOT happen more than once a month
Why burning ONEUP and not CARTEL?
CARTEL is very scarce and many of our stake holders do not want to burn their CARTEL. I certainly don't. Buying a new one from the market can also be difficult, as there is no swap pool and a relatively small supply available in sell orders. Further, it will create a nice sink for ONEUP tokens, which are also governed and owned by the @oneup-cartel. As the largest stake holder, it is in our own interest to bring more value to ONEUP.
Why do we vote with CARTEL and not ONEUP?
CARTEL is our governance token. It was always intended like that. ONEUP became a Cartel governed project, when I transferred both my private stake as well as the Hive-Engine ownership of the token to the @oneup-cartel. The Cartel is the largest ONEUP stake holder and the only driving force behind the project. It is the Cartel, that is financing future developments for ONEUP, like our upcoming frontend. This also means, that all proposals for what happens with ONEUP will be proposed and voted upon by CARTEL stake holders via this proposed system!
The CARTEL DAO has control over the Cartel treasury, including all assets within @oneup-cartel, @curation-cartel, as well as our gaming accounts like @cartel-woo, @cartel-dcity etc. It also owns the developed code like our curation bots, the Discord bots and our @cartel.swap with the frontend code on https://swap.oneup-cartel.com/ and all the assets stored there.
The Cartel has also full ownership of the ONEUP token and all its economics. This includes its inflation, its own reserves under @oneup.reserve and @oneup.delegation as well as the mission for future developments and use-cases.
Further, I am now quoting the remaining Splinterlands guidelines, as they perfectly apply to us as well:
Additionally, proposals must contain all of the details necessary for implementation in order to be considered for an official vote. Vague or unclear proposals will not be accepted as it won't be clear what exactly stakeholders are voting for and we won't be able to ensure that we can actually implement it correctly.
During the informal voting period, the author may make edits to the proposal post to clarify things or make changes to some of the smaller proposal details requested by the community. If a proposal requires very significant edits that fundamentally alter the concept being proposed, those should instead be made as an entirely new proposal, which also means paying the fee again. Proposals should be well thought-out and detailed before being posted and the edit feature should not be a way to sneak additional items in without paying the fee again.
Also, if we suspect that edits have been made at the last minute or in any way in an attempt to trick the stakeholders, that proposal will not continue to formal voting and the fee will not be refunded. A full history of all edits to posts are always available on the Hive blockchain, so it is not possible to hide changes.
Similarly, proposals should focus on one concept or change each. A group of changes that all work together towards a single goal is fine, but any proposal that appears to contain multiple, unrelated changes as a way to attempt to squeeze multiple things under one proposal fee will not be recognized by the Cartel management.
It will also be possible for the community to vote for DAO funds to be spent to hire third-party developers to build certain features.
The Boss Is NOT Up For Vote - YET
The role of the Cartel Boss is not up for vote - yet. The reason for that is mostly security of our assets. I do know, that I handle all our assets with high integrity and a high level of safety. I also know, that you guys trust me with that. Eventually, I would be happy to pass the torch as soon as the technology is ready for that, with things like multi-sigs and maybe some general DAO features on HIVE or even our own developments. Right now we are not there yet and quite frankly, I simply don't know what we need and how this should look like.
When the community feels that the time has come, I would expect a special proposal first, that clearly defines the rules of such a change of management, how it affects the safety of our assets and how it helps with further decentralization, rather than changing from one central entity handling the keys to another. This proposal would not be about the management change itself but about how this would be handled going forward. If successfully voted for, the path for a proper change in management would be open.
Proposal Page Incoming
Right now, we have no proposal page yet, so all votes would have to be done via your favourite HIVE frontend directly on the proposal posts as upvotes or downvotes (consider doing 1% downvotes, as we don't want to crush the reputation of the author).
However, we are currently building our own HIVE frontend and integrating this new proposal system in a way like Peakmonsters did, which should be easy enough and will be part of our launch version.
Please share any of your proposals in our Cartel Discord for greater visibility.