Viewpoint (pros/cons) summary for Core Proposals

AGIP13’s core proposal is unique because, as @coderdan said in Discord, this is the first core proposal that had pretty much no influence from the dev team. That being the case, the proposal is unfortunately a bit light on details around the ramifications of the proposed change.

While these forums serve as a way to summarize discussions in a more controlled manner than discord, they can still become quite cumbersome to sift through. We need something better for voters who are not actively engaged in DAO activities outside of votes.

The proposal here is to amend the template that core proposals currently follow… it will ultimately be up to the dev team to uphold this standard for now, but this will cease to be an issue once the DAO reaches its adulthood. Within any core proposal there should be a brief summary of the arguments for or against the change. At least one bullet point on each side would suffice, but ideally there would be several points on each side to help voters make educated decisions. This process could even be delegated to a committee that works directly with the dev team to provide this brief for the time being.

Without this, I fear that more and more voters will be voting without fully understanding the weight of each option. As the game and ecosystem get more and more complex, so will core proposals which further increases the likelihood of voters participating without fully understanding.


I don’t see how this can’t become AGIP14. Very good idea, in light of recent DAO events.
The more inactive, and those who opposed the measure, have feelings which your post has explained.
Those feelings have led to implying that the DAO isn’t as solid as it really/currently is, therefore I support this measure so that never again- does anybody cast doubt on a clean and succesful vote that followed template.
Also, you propose a list of arguments to spare the more active members of the community answering the same question or objection multiple times ad-nauseam :+1:.


I agree that potential benefits and risks should be emphasized. In fact, the template for Signal Proposals as first published in the “Scaling AavegotchiDAO” medium post already includes such:


Maybe we could expand on that. “Acknowledge” doesn’t imply thoroughness. Should we require a summary of the main arguments raised for and against?

1 Like

I think it should be required. Requiring it in SigProps is an interesting thought as well. In theory, there should be enough discussion before a SigProp goes live to include it. Doing this would also explicitly designate the SigProp creator as having the sole responsibility of writing up the summary and including it in their proposal rather than someone needing to do it between Signal and Core stages