Pure Proxies should only be available for voting on referendums - not by Curators of a Bounty
Voting on various OpenGov referendums is the individual's choice and preference for governance matters. A person may not want their preferences on specific matters open to the public (which can be debated on and on regarding transparency et al) and the only purpose to have pure proxies. Please correct me if I am wrong or missing anything. Curators of Bounties are elected or approved by the community via Treasury referendum, typically based on their reputation, expertise and knowledge in a given field. Managing a bounty and the allocation of child bounties by its curators are not transferable and the decisions by curators must be transparent, as the use of pure proxies violates the trust and contradicts the best interest of the community. The continuous erosion of trust is irreversible, which requires more aggressive and proactive action by community leaders instead of the complacent reactive stance waiting for the majority to discuss, propose, debate and repeat.
Comments (1)
Comments (1)
I don't think the answer is to take away functionality or totally bar certain curator account configurations. The issue of curator replacement is not an easy problem since there's turnover in virtually every organization. To burden DOT holders each time with the responsibility of minor restructuring is very inefficient. This issue must be addressed in a bounty program's structure from the moment it's proposed. In my opinion, DOT holders should not approve a bounty program that does not outline onboarding/offboarding curators that chose to join/leave the program. It should be an integral part of every bounty program because it's unrealistic to expect the same curator team to manage a bounty for the bounty's entire lifespan. For example, the bounty program that I founded (bounty #46) has its foundation in a ratified Charter which has very clear replacement protocols. The approval of this bounty implies approval of the replacement protocols. These protocols introduce qualification criteria, selection rationale, and utmost transparency. In other words, our bounty program cannot frivolously replace its members like we've seen with other programs. Those that are swapped into/out of the program must follow a clear protocol and we record interviews with everyone we consider for a replacement. The answer to this is on the social/contractual layer. Proxies are fine as long as they strictly adhere to reasonable protocols. OpenGov must carefully consider these protocols when approving a bounty.
I don't think the answer is to take away functionality or totally bar certain curator account configurations. The issue of curator replacement is not an easy problem since there's turnover in virtually every organization. To burden DOT holders each time with the responsibility of minor restructuring is very inefficient. This issue must be addressed in a bounty program's structure from the moment it's proposed. In my opinion, DOT holders should not approve a bounty program that does not outline onboarding/offboarding curators that chose to join/leave the program. It should be an integral part of every bounty program because it's unrealistic to expect the same curator team to manage a bounty for the bounty's entire lifespan. For example, the bounty program that I founded (bounty #46) has its foundation in a ratified Charter which has very clear replacement protocols. The approval of this bounty implies approval of the replacement protocols. These protocols introduce qualification criteria, selection rationale, and utmost transparency. In other words, our bounty program cannot frivolously replace its members like we've seen with other programs. Those that are swapped into/out of the program must follow a clear protocol and we record interviews with everyone we consider for a replacement. The answer to this is on the social/contractual layer. Proxies are fine as long as they strictly adhere to reasonable protocols. OpenGov must carefully consider these protocols when approving a bounty.