I am happy to see the project itself transition into a foundation. Looking forward to see what becomes of the DAO. I have seen other projects go south quickly without good controls. The voting aspect that I witnessed was largely split between big bag holders looking for profits, smaller holders more interested in long term viability and health of project and the rest somewhere in between. Always profiteers vs believers/supporters.
There is something to say about “corporate structure” and how most operate. The board members etc are usually held to task by “shareholders”, investors etc for different reasons.
A DAO with a permanent or semi-permanent “board” with veto type powers would be a good consideration I feel. The board could be perhaps 3 permanent members (one being Colin obviously), 3 rotating “team members” and perhaps 3 community members with the last 6 being voted on through the DAO in two “groups”.
Not much information yet to expect what is coming so I will end it there. It’s too early to make a proposal when not sure of what it will look like initially! JMO.
Indeed, the ideal would be a joint participation of the team and the community, members of the community who are aligned with the vision of the project in the long term precisely to avoid what you are mentioning regarding the interest only for profit, in that sense The idea is to generate viable proposals that can fit the project for its development and growth in the long term and avoid any malicious proposal and decision that seeks to harm and shorten the life of the search engine.
I agree completely with this. I think many teams with a DAO have a natural veto mechanism in the fact that the team holds the most tokens. I believe veto mechanisms are extremely important in the early stages of a project, but I guess it’s important to quantify and plan this as well.
For Presearch, I’m not sure if the team holds enough token to veto by vote strength - as the circulating supply is quite high. This is why your suggestion is so important.
And if you want to see a DAO on the wrong path, take a look at DIMO, where the whales are practically running/ruining the entire use of the DAO. Last time I checked, 7 members had more than 95% of the vote strength. Do I care voting - nope. Will they ever manage to get the community members with small bags to vote - nope.
Hello Thanks for your opinion, Community involvement is very important in any project and in fact many suggestions from presearch users have been applied to the search engine, “safe search” has been one of the most recent, it is important to determine that the community is aligned with the goals and long term vision of the project, it does not make sense and we understand the risk that only a group of people have control or that some people can somehow harm the project through the voting system, the Dao will have a specific structure of which we will have enough information once the transition to the foundation is completed.
If a 2-chamber voting system is set up this would still give the PRE holders a say just not complete control. This would also allow the single chamber of PRE holders to actually spin off other separate uses for PRE in conjunction with or outside of the Presearch platform.
An example would be if the PRE holder chamber decided to create an algorithmic smart contract escrow. Where all PRE holders interested in developing other uses for PRE could contribute to a pooled PRE escrow that only those who contributed would be able to make separate use proposals and votes for the escrow. This might pool the PRE for more economical nodes or other income generating uses providing income to those who contribute and/or for distributing PRE as payment to verified developers or auditors developing new applications, uses, or verification of certain open sourced presearch code. Lots of options once utilities like governance are initially developed.
JMO.