Foundation Proposal Guidelines

With recent proposals, it’s become clear that ambiguity may become a recurring problem. I’d like to propose some guidelines that should be followed for safe and successful executions by the Foundation.

Proposals should have a list of transactions that should be executed by the foundation with the following details

  • A list of transactions that the foundation should execute in detail. This should include the contracts to call, the functions to execute, what multisig the call should be from, and the parameters for the functions.
  • A list of expenses in as much detail as possible. This could be linked, but should be included in the proposal and should be read only aka immutable. (This should include GAS! if necessary)

Without these details, the foundation is left to fill in the details which is not ideal. The foundation only exists to execute the will of the DAO, and should not be using its discretion to fill in details. Let me know if there’s any feedback on these points.



Can you whip up a template? We can host it on the notion, and embed it everywhere that the process appears in our documentation.

We’re about to submit the budget request proposal for the DAO Media Team, so we will use whatever you provide, and teach everyone else to use that, too.

1 Like

Basically it should include a section like this:

Transaction Details

  1. The matic liquidity multisig 0x62DE034b1A69eF853c9d0D8a33D26DF5cF26682E should call approve(address,amount) with parameters 0x42069XD… and 1,000,000,000,000,000…

Expenses (Could be replaced with a link to a read only spreadsheet or something)

  1. 42,069 GHST for Mori to buy his gotchi a new boat to 0x318GHST.
  2. 10 MATIC to be swapped into from DAI at <10% slippage at oracle rate for gas to pet Mori’s gotchi to 0x318GHST.
  3. 1,000,000 DAI in fees to Mori for his exceedingly beautiful eyes to 0x318GHST.

To be clear, this is just a suggestion and I don’t think it matters much how this is all formatted as long as this information is sufficiently clear and present in the proposals.

1 Like

I think it matters, because monkey see monkey do. All it takes is filling the first page of props with a consistent pattern, and people will catch on that there is, in fact, a pattern.

If people see that others have been making this up as they go along, they will do the same, or maybe not even try, as many people do not feel comfortable without some sort of initial structure to lean on.


Yes, I think that’s a good point. I just do not as a foundation member want to be involved in dictating how proposals should be written when it is not relevant to the foundation doing its job properly. But if the DAO wishes for standardized proposals, they should feel free to do this.


Thank you for raising this point Mori, I appreciate it! Would you be comfortable quickly discussing this in the DAO Meeting today? Or do you think a little more time here in the discourse would be advantageous?

1 Like

tbh I dont really like doing voice calls lol. I’m hoping that what I’ve posted here is detailed enough to move the idea forward.

1 Like

I’m way ahead of you :slight_smile:


Understandable. I’m exactly the same :slightly_smiling_face:

Haha, you always are ser :raised_hands:

1 Like

I think a simple yet comprehensive one page Tally form would work. We could create a dedicated AavegotchiDAO Foundation Tally account for which all 9 Directors would have access to the form and submissions.

1 Like

Where do we see the list of directors again?

1 Like

Were working on a method to provide more information openly to the DAO members, but in the meantime in answer to your question:

AavegotchiDAO Board of Directors
Oliver Spoon

As voted by the AavegotchiDAO in the AGIP51 REVOTE.

1 Like

I agree that stricter standards are needed across the board for core props. The standards listed here by @Mori are no-brainers, and I think there have been many others brought up in various places that are worthy of consideration.

I do wonder who will enforce standards. In a perfect world, the DAO votes down proposals that don’t uphold standards for proposals and the governance process (even if they agree with the overall content of the proposal), but in practicality I believe that’s highly unlikely to work out.

I have brought up the idea of an elected governance task force that works with proposal creators to ensure that proposals are complete and unambiguous and that all governance procedures set by the DAO are followed. The task force would take ownership of the duties of posting core props (currently done by PC- sometimes they intervene and ask things to be clarified, other times they don’t).

Considering making a separate thread on this, but thought it was relevant here.


I’ve always agreed a governance task force is needed for the DAO. Otherwise when PC decide to completely hand over the keys who will keep everything moving? I get the whole decentralized ideal, but some kind of structure is always needed in the real world if we ever plan to get anything done.

Just out of curiosity, do you know of any DAO’s where precedence has been set for this kind of team? I think I remember asking this a while ago, but a lot of water has passed under the bridge in such a short amount of time.


Seems like a job for self assembling machine elves. Maybe we’re still evolving :smiley:

Also how do we judge the quality of ideas? So far Aavegotchi has self regulated decently by being small and requiring an extensive post with spreadsheets and graphs that directly relate to NFT project in some way, with most ideas being ignored cause nobody was working on them to specify the details to a tee such as unlimited gotchis, the boombox and a couple more ideas.

The first big idea that passed was the BRS age mechanic which imo it’s upside down, younger gotchis shouldn’t instantly get +3 points, only old gotchis should get bombarded after 2-3 years with +7 points. but I didn’t have enough time to judge it accordingly, it looked good technically so I assumed “big brain think, all good here” or “too big brain for me to judge, just trust them” that’s usually the average person’s mindset which I’m guilty of.
The only other big changes by both Pixelcraft and the DAO to the game were: the removal of Frens/lack of buying tickets with GLTR, removing the bonding curve, The Forge, nerfing channeling, 8% second alchemica reroll.
These were rare changes and aside from the forge and bonding curve they were minimal game changing updates compared to other projects that change in big ways every 4 months.

However the more Aavegotchi gets bigger and attracts game designers, writers with silver tongues and technical experts the more likely it is for either very ambitious ideas like the forge to be approved or much smaller but very game changing updates like channeling-altars rebalance and age mechanics.
Quantity doesn’t necessarily bring bad actors and we might in fact finally get some fresh opinions for ideas that seemed to have been mostly ignored for 3 years.

Ideas such as; how to make H1 more desirable, the background slot, providing a use-case for the quantity of collateral in a gotchi, what to do with double myth eyes, gotchiverse games, more ways of gaining XP and kinship, ARS leaderboard, a rarity farm event that requires interaction rather than indirectly staking your wearables through your gotchi and leaving it there for 3 years, what to do with 0 kinship gotchis, dapps in the gotchiverse/Phaser, providing more uses for badges, age mechanics, specific collateral, etc. etc. a lot of ideas.

The weird overpriced floor between 50kinship 0xp, 0 age gotchis and gotchis with 1000 kinship, xp, +5BRS age points is also a consequence of the small insular community thinking in a specific way rather than the usefulness of kinship, XP, aging mechanic in itself.
This helped us immensely in maintaining a floor which paired nicely with the stability of the curvebond. Aavegotchi owners were much more efficient and stubborn at selling their gotchis and portals for MSRP compared to land owners.
At the same time unlike land, aavegotchis have always been expensive, there was no bottom. The way these gotchis are priced is very inconsistent and illogical with no care put if they’re 1/1, low ID, a specific collateral, have badges, etc. very similar to the position of the land besides district 1, nobody cares where your land is situated. So you end up with a lot things being ignored whereas in other NFT projects they’re solely priced on those aspects which we consider useless for having no immediate gameplay effect. Considering we started off with wearables as the primary NFT for Aavegotchi it isn’t that much of a surprise that we went BRS first and everything else second. I think I went off topic here, but community size & type is interlinked with economy and quantity & types of proposals.

1 Like