Decentralized Governance is like free markets - at its best it’s the most efficient form of governance, and it’s worst - chaos that destroys the object that it’s governing. It has to have:
- Large enough pool of participants
- Participants that are actively involved
- Participants that are acting intelligently and that learn in the process
- Participants who are sticking around for a longer term and take this view in their actions
Polkadot is an ecosystem that has all these ingredients, and if our common potential energy is put into action and kinetic energy (item 2 above), we will have a thriving ecosystem.
This is why I have actively participated in improving Polkadot for over 5 years, starting out as an Ambassador, translating Polkadot.JS, organizing MeetUps and talking at them. Since OpenGov was created I voted on over 250 proposals. My votes reflect my view of the OpenGov DAO at the moment of time. Initially I have considered important to increase funding and support most proposals, since any action was better then no action. After about 6-9 months of that approach, its excesses became apparent, and right now I am in the more conservative camp. Here’s my voting strategy for this year: - Big proposal have the highest hurdle. In most situation proposal has to be very well prepared (as a business case for millions of dollars has to be), have a clarified ROI that is measurable, demonstrable and has mechanism for checking and corrective action (preferably milestone based with subsequent release of funds). Recipients must have a track record in Polkadot ecosystem (first time projects/teams are advised to start smaller).
- Each project submitting a proposal has invested time and energy into it, and deserve guidance on how to make it valuable for Polkadot. If I know how to help, I provide comments. Silent Nay is the worst form of OpenGov participation until we have a good systematic way to deal with proposals.
- We need a systematic way to review proposals efficiently. Comments are often offensive and counterproductive. Vast majority of voters does not provide any guidance, and we have very few people or organizations to do so. DOT Experts was the step in the right direction and we need more of it. The form of DOT Play is a good one - allocate funds to professionals, and they allocate grants effectively, with a strategy and good execution. From this perspective Marketing bounty is even better example, since it has a feedback mechanism and the community can change its mind on the level of funding or delegated curators, etc. (I know there’s a lot of negative voices on that one, and this is why it’s a good example of the community control and input. Other forms are needed, too. Any initiatives to organize the groups that help simplify the voters’ decision making process and make it less emotional and more fact/data based will get my attention and support, if needed and deserved. I will vote Nay on proposals that do not have a good way to validate their value - either experts who do that or an easy way to evaluate the value independently. Well structured and written Executive Summary goes a long way.
- Value of funds in Treasury is low, historically speaking. Until that is the case I will vote conservatively - only projects that have to be done now (including ongoing projects/efforts that deserve ongoing Treasury funding) and are sure to produce value will be supported now. This approach is flexible, and the threshold will adjust. More money we have, more we can spend, and vice versa.
- Non-treasury referenda are getting increasingly important and will get full attention and coverage.
Finally, something that is assumed - if I have a conflict of interest (proposal that benefits me), I will abstain.
If you are still reading, the conclusion - my philosophy here is not a philosophy, but rather very practical thoughts on how to make OpenGov better. When we have a well functioning decentralized system, we can move up the Maslow pyramid and talk about philosophy.