Community governance is given by God

Recently, some community members proposed increasing the total amount of HDAO tokens, which caused a lot of discussion.They believe that the current number of HDAO tokens is not conducive to community development and cannot attract more forces to participate in community construction and maximize community interests.

In fact, it’s really a community problem. However, the right to govern is the most important and fundamental right of a community. Careful thinking is needed in changing the distribution of governance.

The blockchain community is new, and there are no particularly successful governance cases to refer to. The Sushi community was supposed to be promising, but it turned out to be a failure.

Reference:

Fortunately, we can look to history for answers, especially the history of the United States.To me, the history of The United States is essentially a history of community building.And I know from American history that community governance comes from God.

In 1615 the Mayflower was successfully built.On September 6, 1620, the ship set sail from Plymouth, England, with a crew of 102 men, women and children, bound for what is now Massachusetts in the United States. Of these, 35 were Puritans and 67 were “strangers” (non-puritans).

A political declaration signed on 11 November 1620 on board the Mayflower by 41 of these adult men before the ship came ashore, agreeing to create and submit to a government.This political statement was called the Mayflower Compact.The Mayflower Compact marks the beginning of the formation of the embryonic United States and is considered by historians to be the birth certificate of the United States.

“IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the first Colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually, in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid: And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame, such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. IN WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape-Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James, of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth, and of Scotland the fifty-fourth, Anno Domini; 1620.

The fact that,Thirteen years before the Mayflower landing, the British had already established colonies in North America.However, at that time the governance of this colony was under British control, unlike Massachusetts, where governance was controlled by the people living there.History began to change from this moment.

After more than 150 years of development, the conflict between Britain and the North American colonies began to intensify, culminating in the independence of North America in 1776.

In a way, the history of the development of the hen community is very similar to that of the United States. Artists and art lovers from all over the world now come together.In the beginning, Rafael Lima had the power to influence the governance of the community, then he left and the community became independent and was governed by its members.

So, the question arises, will community governance rights need to be redistributed after Rafael Lima’s departure? And if so how should they be distributed?From the perspective of American independence, how should American governance be redistributed after the suzerain state, Britain, loses control of governance?

History tells us that the right to govern the United States was controlled by the then 13 independent states. Later, as the United States acquired more land, the United States became home to 50 states and the right to govern the United States was no longer controlled by the 13 states of the past.It is important to recall that the expansion of the right to govern in the United States from 13 states to more states has taken place over a period of more than 200 years in between.

Also, in the beginning only the white community had the right to govern in the United States, other people of colour did not. Later, as history progressed, people from Africa and people from Asia were given the right to govern.

From this history, we can draw two lessons.

Firstly, the distribution of governance power changes as the membership of the community body changes.

Secondly, changes in governance rights are gradual and do not occur over a short period of time.

Why?

If the distribution of governance rights in a community does not change, the whole community system is solidified, which is not conducive to cohesion and development and building. However, if the distribution of governance power in a community changes dramatically in a short period of time, the whole community system is unstable and can bring an element of division and divisive values to the community.

Therefore, for hen communities, their development should follow a similar pattern. Not changing the distribution of community governance is not conducive to attracting more contributors to the community, and allowing a dramatic change in the distribution of governance in the short term can affect the stability of the community and make it difficult to develop a strong community consensus. The end result could be a split, as in the case of the sushi community.

Therefore, depending on the current stage of the hen community, it may be premature to increase the options for governance token hdao distribution. The community has just gone through a chaotic phase and needs to think and build calmly. Increasing the governance token allocation would inevitably result in the governance rights of many people who have been supporting the development of the community being compromised, and may also allow people who do not conform to the values of the hen community to enter the community in large numbers, increasing the level of chaos in the community.

From a rational point of view, people who contribute to the hen community are not necessarily members of the hen community and may sometimes be driven by personal selfish interests. If these people have too much of a voice in the community, the hen community may lose its vision.

Do contributor incentives have to be in hdao tokens?

For example, allocating some protocol fees to short-term developers, marketing and operations staff is a good way to do this. If a developer, or another contributor, has made a long term and substantial contribution to the hen community, it is possible to use the protocol fee to buy hdao tokens to distribute to them.

This ensures that the interests of early contributors are protected, while maintaining the interests of new contributors. Of course, there are various clever ways to implement this in practice. But in any case, simply issuing additional tokens does not make sense from a historical perspective.

Community governance is given by God,We should be careful with the gifts of God.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------by jackgogogo :)

3 Likes

"Therefore, depending on the current stage of the hen community, it may be premature to increase the options for governance token hdao distribution. The community has just gone through a chaotic phase and needs to think and build calmly. Increasing the governance token allocation would inevitably result in the governance rights of many people who have been supporting the development of the community being compromised, and may also allow people who do not conform to the values of the hen community to enter the community in large numbers, increasing the level of chaos in the community. From a rational point of view, people who contribute to the hen community are not necessarily members of the hen community and may sometimes be driven by personal selfish interests. If these people have too much of a voice in the community, the hen community may lose its vision."

So you’re suggesting that we don’t dilute the supply, as the proposal lays out – correct?

It’s still not very clear how "increasing the governance token allocation would inevitably result in the governance rights of many people who have been supporting the development of the community being compromised." – Are you saying that hDAO holders governing power gets diluted along with the supply? Because that is true. But we must keep in mind that the alternative then is that we leave it completely to the secondary market, with the exception of a small percentage of “buy backs,” which was something I thought the last month of conversation pushed us beyond. I.e., many felt strongly that the better solution would be to put up the cost to distribute upwards of 25% to active platform users retroactively, so that they didn’t have to collect voting power through monetary means on secondary market.

Additionally, I wonder if it is a contradiction in terms to say: “people who contribute to the hen community are not necessarily members of the hen community and may sometimes be driven by personal selfish interests.” 1) Arguably anyone who is contributing to the hen community IS a member of the hen community. 2) Many, if not all, who are contributing to the DAO proposal are HEN users.

I will say, however, that I appreciate the written response to the proposal to dilute the supply! Though we might think that the anecdote of the response is a bit larger than the humble dilution of ~25% upfront, with another ~25% over 3 year time span, which is what the proposal suggests approximately. (Also, it’s worth noting that I too was initially against increasing the supply and wanted to keep hDAO, but over time was convinced that a compromise of small dilution was probably more ideal for the long-term goals, and considering the short-comings of the previous distribution model for hDAO.)

Lastly, to provide some context to those who may be unfamiliar, here is the new DAO proposal to which Jack is referring. Note that this proposal intends to migrate hDAO holders to the new token. Not every detail is final, and will be subject to further clarification and voting, but as a general concept this is the state of the art: NewDAO - Google Docs

2 Likes

The newDAO token should be designed to meet the following requirements

  1. Unite the community by giving most people a saying, or a chance to vote, that will not be overwhelmed by whale holders

  2. incentivize people who want to work for the platform, ie: core team, volunteers, advisors or other people who can be beneficial for the long term growth. This part needs to be vested over a certain years.

  3. incentivize users who used the platform

  4. leave some flexibility for the dao to host events, marketing, or other things that are beneficial for the platform.

  5. unite the support from hdao holders which have high % of overlapping with HEN users.

The above 1-4 requires some dilution of hdao, mint more NewDAO token vs hdao.

So I agree with @TaoZao. As some of you might know, I’m a top holder of hdao, and dilution is not in my own interest. I first proposed the dilution, for the long term well being of the new HEN. I also convinced many people that the dilution is necessary if we want to build a long term sustainable platform.

Platform fee is $$, but nothing incentivize people more than the token of the new HEN.

If you want to redistribute hDAO tokens, use the platform fees to buy them on the open market.

Airdropping more hDAO will just cause more centralisation, since people will just sell them as soon as they receive them, to frontrun the inflation.

A DAO token that keeps loosing value will punish those people that are most loyal to the platform, hence it is counterproductive.

People asking for hDAO are asking for compensation for their contribution. This is the real issue.

If you get compensated for your contribution you can simply buy hDAO if you actually care to be able to vote.

1 Like

I disagree with the issuance of new tokens, this case only seem viable in the case of reproducing the token in other chains possibly. The distribution of fees to the community as a means of compensation is something that was in an early stage of development. A basic distribution model would be a good start as a transparency practice and is, well, delayed despite all the community efforts for a long date.

For such I believe it’s necessary to have a proper community plan regarding communication/events/development, hicetnunc.tez wallet could also ignite such efforts. Many ideas are already outlined in the present forum regarding community governance and DAO developments even though mostly ignored. It’s good though that we have such documentations publicly available.

Governance is also a subject of security and not only the community can play such system, but also other parties (see objkt.com fork, using concepts from the hic et nunc ecosystem without any type of consent, spreading disinformation and subtracting value from the ecosystem). In a similar way the creation of another Discord channel, other twitter, as we already had hicetnuncDAO is a bit concerning as it segregates common channels, also leaving margin for doubts of intentions. Developers workforce is also an important part of such plannings.

hey crzypatchwork,

(replying because of the comment by anonymous on the WIP document for the text on the name voting)

the last part of your message reads to me like you dont want to see a “split” between the hicetnunc and a new “fork”. the new discord/twitter was formed out of necessity to gather the people that want to build/maintain something for the users who are not able to use hicetnunc.xyz anymore, if there had been a way to use the originals channels etc, it would probably have played out differently i assume.
does that mean you dont view the project as “discontinued” anymore? would you like to see a continuation of “hicetnunc”?

maybe some kind of proposal or concrete suggestions could be helpful.

i dont know if i understand correctly but to me the discussed DAO models dont look like they are being ignored but rather discussed. i.e. a bunch of people is currently writing proposals and a lot of ideas are in the making rn. imo arriving at a finished DAO model will take a lot of time

1 Like