MENA Virtual Workshop CIP1694 - June 2023

In hopes of Growing the Cardano family stronger in the Middle East and North Africa region, further cementing Cardano as the leading state-of-the-art blockchain project.

The conversation revolves around the topic of governance actions in the context of Cardano. The participants discuss different types of governance actions, including their roles and the voting process. They mention the importance of the constitutional committee in ensuring actions align with the Cardano constitution. They also discuss the involvement of D-Reps (Decentralized Representative) and stake pool operators (SPOs) in the governance process.

The conversation then moves on to the question of appropriate deposit amounts for submitting governance actions. They consider the severity of the actions and the potential impact on the Cardano network. They discuss the idea of different deposit amounts based on the seriousness of the action and the need to strike a balance between inclusivity and spam prevention.

The participants also debate whether D-Reps should have a deposit requirement. Some argue that it helps ensure seriousness and commitment, while others question the necessity of such a barrier. They discuss the role of deposits in indicating the seriousness of proposals and mitigating spam.

The conversation touches on the issue of project proposal vetting for Catalyst and how governance action deposits can help address this challenge. The participants mention the need to strike a balance between allowing participation and ensuring serious contributors.

So far, the conversation explores the various aspects of governance actions, including deposit amounts, seriousness, inclusivity, and their impact on the Cardano network.

The conversation also revolves around governance actions and treasury withdrawals in a workshop setting. Juana suggests implementing a threshold increase for repeat governance action requests that have been voted down to avoid spamming and wasting time. Amir agrees and mentions the possibility of using an action expiration mechanism to prevent continuous resubmissions. They discuss the need for a tool to track proposal data and frequency. The conversation then shifts to treasury withdrawals, with Amir explaining the process and the need to determine limits and frequencies for withdrawal requests. Juana suggests limiting the frequency and size of withdrawals based on the treasury’s growth rate to ensure sustainability. They also discuss the possibility of timeboxing or tiering the withdrawal limits based on the proposal amounts. They mention the importance of ensuring treasury remains sustainable and preventing excessive drain by individual projects. The conversation concludes with considerations about the approval and funding process for proposals of varying amounts and the potential role of different entities in the decision-making process.

Then , the participants discuss various ideas and suggestions related to voting, wallet support, proposal tracking, and transparency in the context of the Cardano community. They emphasize the need for a tool that can easily translate different languages and summarize proposals for non-English speakers. They also discuss the importance of tracking the progress of proposals, ensuring transparency in fund allocation, and assessing whether the promised outcomes are achieved. Rami and Nadim touch upon the concept of proof of achievement and proof of milestone for ambassadors, as well as the idea of categorizing proposals based on different focus areas. The participants explore the potential of using DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations) to pool funds together and collectively elect D-Reps (Decentralized Representatives) from their community. They also suggest tools like a talent marketplace to match proposals with the required skills, a tool to identify and showcase reputation within the community, and a contribution score system to weigh the voices and votes of individuals based on their past contributions. The participants express the importance of incentivizing participation, lowering barriers, and facilitating collaboration among ADA holders.

Participants continue on ideating around various topics related to governance actions and decision-making processes within a decentralized network. Amir expresses the importance of active wallets and verifying the humanity of voters in order to ensure a fair and reliable system. They discuss the need for higher quorums and passing thresholds for severe governance actions such as hard forks, which would affect the entire network. Juana highlights the role of stake pool operators and the need for their majority support for certain changes to be implemented. They also touch upon the concept of a motion of no confidence and its implications for the constitutional committee. The conversation concludes with a discussion on determining appropriate percentages for quorums and passing thresholds, with the recognition that achieving high levels of participation can be challenging. The speakers contemplate the feasibility of achieving 70% participation and suggest that a lower percentage might be more realistic. They also mention Catalyst as a potential source for analyzing voting patterns and participation rates.

Additionally, concerning governance actions and voting in the context of a project or platform. Juana mentions the number of votes casted in a fund and discusses the highest number of votes received in a particular Catalyst fund. Amir raises the question of how many participants actively vote and suggests that incentives could play a role in increasing participation. The speakers debate even more on the ideal quorum for voting, with Juana suggesting that a quorum could be less than 1% if the issue at hand is not important. They also discuss the likelihood of D-reps/ stakeholders actively participating in voting and the importance of incentives. Nadim proposes higher numbers for supermajority votes and mentions the need for a more scientific approach to determine voting thresholds. The conversation then shifts to the expiration of governance actions and the return of deposits if an action is not ratified. The speakers contemplate the appropriate duration for keeping a governance action active and suggest potential consequences for repeated or spam-like actions. They also express uncertainty about how long a governance action stays active before it is enacted or expires. This matter or conversation ends with Amir acknowledging the need for more information and a data-driven analysis to determine these parameters accurately.

Then the conversation moves to various topics related to governance actions and incentives in a decentralized system. The participants discuss the concept of smart contracts and NFT tokens, proposing the idea of locking funds for a specified period during governance actions. They explore the duration for which a governance action should stay active before expiring and the consequences for proposals that are not ratified. There are suggestions to implement fees for extending voting periods and to vary the length of deposit lockup based on the severity of the governance action. The role of a constitutional committee is discussed, with considerations about decentralization and accountability. The conversation also touches upon incentivizing delegated representatives (D-reps) and how to manage payments for their participation. The participants suggest tying incentives to the approval of proposals and explore options such as a small percentage of approved proposals or a function based on the number of proposals supported.

Juana, Amir, and Nadim discuss the topic of rewards and incentives in the context of decentralized governance some more. They explore the idea of proportional rewards based on the amount of ADA held by participants and the potential for minimum rewards regardless of block production. They also discuss the concept of D-Reps (Decentralized Representatives) and how their rewards should be managed. The conversation now touches on the idea of using a small percentage of the governance deposit to fund DApp incentives and the importance of clear and predictable rewards for participants. They also consider the role of simulations and specialized expertise in analyzing the implications of different reward systems. Overall, the conversation highlights the need for thoughtful consideration of rewards and incentives in decentralized governance, involving the wider community and incorporating scientific approaches to decision-making.