Conclave Structure Change?

Julian brought up a strong idea in the public square and I want to echo it here, and add my commentary to what I think is a potential remedy to some recent and long-standing issues with The Conclave’s electoral / administrative structure.

His post, verbatim:

Revamping the Conclave System

I’m planning on drafting a forum post proposing a change to this project’s system of governance. While I sincerely appreciate the current structure and intention I think it is possible the community may be served more efficiently by dissolving the council of Conclave Representatives.

One of the few duties the Conclave Representatives had was to distribute six Conclave Bell tokens each term. The purpose was to recognize players whose “participation, activity, or efforts has positively impacted the WAGDIE project.”

I believe those who have received these tokens in the past hold the project’s best interests at heart and most are still fairly active here after all this time. What I am considering proposing is that possessing a Conclave Bell token enables the holder’s wallet to sign any transactions needed to advance community proposals.

There were originally 36 Bells minted. 12 are yet to be distributed. Of the 24 sent out, 5 have been seared.

Increasing the number of signers from the Conclave Rep’s 6 to a potential of 36 total warrants expanding the quorum beyond 4 - but we wouldn’t want a situation where several community members need to be chased down.

Regarding the few instances of an individual holding more than one token, myself included, I think they should be returned to the pool that has yet to be distributed and we can also begin to work out a process for getting them into the hands of whom the community deems worthy. I like the idea of requiring the Bell to be seared.

Just figured I throw this out in the public square now as something to think about.


I really like a lot of things about this.

It’s fluid, rotational, provides incentive for members to give up power (sell), it adds more people to the process, and will make it easier to accomplish proposals with less chokehold or risk of absenteeism.

Only changes I’d make are to automate a snapshot of wallets as the control method.

Keepers run a snapshot every 60 days, whoever holds at least 1 conclave bell is now a signor. Needs 12 / 36 signors to execute a transaction on the gnosis.

This keeps power in check via Keepers, and removes all electoral duties from the community (it’s auto by the bells) while retaining its power structure.

Curious for thoughts.

1 Like

I like the idea of this change. My only concern would be whether 12 signors is too many to execute the transaction, and maybe a lower threshold would be necessary. Alternately give 2 votes to wallets holding more than 1.

1 Like

Considering we currently need 4/6 going to a 12/36 felt right.

Going from 2/3 to 1/3 seems like a measured step.

The purpose being to allow minority interests to get proposals up more easily.

We shouldn’t need majority for conclave, if there’s actual votes beyond it, so it also softens the overall control of The Conclave without opening completely up to vote-bullying.

Of course, the numbers are always plyable.
Maybe we burn some bells, or mint some more… idk

Why do we even need to use signers on a multisig here?

We could instead allow anyone holding a bell token to create a proposal directly on snapshot using a custom validation.

This does mean any individual with a bell could make/submit a proposal without additional oversight but the real check still comes from the vote and none of our fund distribution is triggered automatically.

I see the potential risk as very low if this option sounds reasonable.

That makes an even lighter oversight load.

Do we have to reconsider quorum for proposals then, once they’re public vote?

Yes less oversight and we can increase quorum.

The question I have is: What is the most destructive thing someone could do by proposing and gaming a vote?

I can’t think of much.

I post 200 vote proposals with nothing but the bee movie script, or porn, or racism.

1 Like

Considering many DAOs allow any token holder to create a proposal the risk is fairly low overall. We could also elect/appoint a handful of assigned moderators to snapshot to address any bee movie posting that could come up.

I feel that getting 4+ votes on a multisig and paying for an on-chain transaction adds excess friction.

Sounds like a plan?
I’m very into this.

This is over-engineering tbh. We don’t have 12 active people around. We don’t even have a decent inbound rate of proposals to justify having anything more complex than a manual ops around this.
Conclave main role is to help to improve proposals and make them ready for community vote (clear to understand and precise), not really to make decisions on what should go into vote and what should not. So there’s no really need for a complex and dynamic system around this function. Like @brennen_eth suggested recently - it’s better to just have a big pool of people (10+ is good; we only got +3 volunteers so far to get us to 9 signers) who can sign txs for snapshot proposals, but no need to bloat the amount of required signatures to approve tx (keep it at 4!). Let’s make it work with this manual op right now and see how it goes - one step at a time.
AFAIR also the approved txs are still not showing up in Snapshot w/o additional approval by the Keepers anyway (thx to Brennen efforts on including The Amalgam in the War).


What are you thoughts on not relying on snapshot for creating proposals and instead anyone with a bell has permission?

My first post was mostly a(n) (emotional) reaction to the increase of required signatooors in either Conclave/bells approach.
Now thinking about the approach when 1x bell (“seared only” is amazing) can just post a proposal for voting on the Snapshot - this probably will be more efficient than the multisig. As long as the Keepers are still protecting the Treasury it will be fine security-wise. Also doubt anyone will be selling bells - probably people will be just passing them around to active folks. And Conclave multisig can handle the bells distribution with 4/9+ signature scheme.

1 Like

I’m glad you came back for this post.

1 Like

re: selling bells

I actually like that it’s an option.
Someone wants out, let them out.
Gives them an incentive to get out.

Like Google or whoever will pay you $100k to quit.

1 Like