Great list @sacha – thanks!
In Social and Governance, DAO Voting Pools: Collective OpenGov Participation gets my attention, as it’s related to my interest in general-purpose accessible DAO tooling. If there is a need for that on Polkadot (as I hypothesise in DAO tooling for project teams ), then DAO Voting Pools is one use case for it. There is no point in features like:
- Import active OpenGov proposals for member voting,
- Auto-execute OpenGov vote using DAO treasury, or
- Compare DAO decision vs actual OpenGov outcome
until you support the other use cases listed, all of which are needed in any DAO.
Building generic accessible DAO tooling is a lot of effort, if it’s just to support those three uses. OTOH, if we already had such tooling, then building DAO voting pools would be much easier.
I am also curious, if off-chain discussion and voting eg in Discord is the problem, then why not use OpenSquare? It’s offchain, and doesn’t auto-execute but it does (I assume) auto-import proposals, and keep good records.
Also, regarding auto-execute, a key contribution of voting collectives is the rationale. Are we going to AI-generate this?
All that aside, I am interested in use-cases for general purpose DAO tooling. What is the use case hot enough to kick start accessible general purpose DAO tooling (eg building on the the Virto communities pallets on Kreivo)?
Another approach, would be to extend or add to the core OpenGov pallets, to support sub-DAOs for voting collectives. Again, this begs the question: is that the hottest use case for sub-DAOs?
Finally, this links to another idea I am interested in. Rather than sub-DAOs, should we not envisage a network of DAOs, with defined relationships? Sure, one DAO could be subordinate to another, like a Department. Others might simply be members of each other, like an individual (or agent) member. In that case, voting in each other’s referenda would be pretty ordinary. The Technical DAO votes in some Marketing DAO referenda and vice versa.