Again, I think what you said and what I said does not conflict. I actually agree that subdaos will probably make certain things slightly better. If different groups have different opinions on how they’d want to develop Polkadot, then it’ll make disagreement less and things more likely to pass.
The untrue assumption is
And this also applies even to subdaos. We will see the same level of collusion and corruption that we have seen as in the current treasury system.
Collusion and corruption have the following characteristics:
- Corruption is to directly provide financial interests for others to vote for you. Collusion is a slightly more subtle form (I scratch your back, you scratch my back). In both cases, voters are not voting on Polkadot’s best interest, or in your case, Polkadot subdao’s best interest. The only party that benefits is the voter itself, through the financial gains from collusion and corruption.
- They are easy to hide during voting, and are usually only discovered after the facts through external audits.
In subdao’s scenario, if we apply the thesis, it means that voters in a subdao will have the incentive to vote Aye to every possible proposals. There will be no disagreements. Parties will have incentives to hide any misbehaviours by other parties. A subdao’s treasury will be depleted more quickly.
This has probably already been happening in the bounty system and also in Fellowship. Lack of external accountability will always be the issue. We’ll not see marketing bounty voluntarily reduce its payout amount because the marketing metrics in a quarter don’t look good, and we’ll never see fellowship reducing its bonus if a project is delayed on roadmap. Technically, those existing subdaos have external accountability on the upper Polkadot governance, but because those subdaos also hold controlling stakes there, the external accountability is effectively void.
This will become even more damaging with the second assumption we think is untrue:
Because voters can vote by feet. They don’t need to vote. They can just leave. There may be good parties who occasionally point out a subdao’s corruption issues. However, it’s not in their interest to further actively engage to fix it, but to move on to other coins.