voting No on this.
I don’t think the DAO is mature enough yet to take decisions of this scope. less than 10% of PNK has voted on this so far. we have a couple of loud voices on Telegram and fewer than 10 people giving opinions on the forum. we also have no known delegates outside the Cooperative who are committed to continued participation and deliberation. what we have are occasional contributions, with no follow-ups. the DAO members outside the Coop doesn’t hold regular meetings or do the work of finding common ground and forming an educated voice. without that, I fear most participants do not have a clear picture of what has been built over the last seven years, where the protocol sits commercially, or what running Kleros actually involves on a daily basis.
there is also no shared framework for evaluating the project, so every proposal gets debated on its own terms with shifting criteria. that’s fine when the stakes are opinions, but not fine when the stakes are 70-80% of cooperative net spending.
what I think happens in practice if this passes is that the Cooperative ends up writing the proposals the DAO then “instructs” the Cooperative to execute.
we would also be taking on governance debt, commit to a structure the non-coop members won’t actually run, then spend time patching it or quietly ignoring it.
also: the enforcement lever is too binary. cutting PNK grants to the Coop is a nuclear option, if it’s never used and the framework has no teeth, or it’s used once and we have a crisis in the coop.
I’d rather take the slower path, and have people to agree on how we should evaluate the project, onboard serious DAO participants that are committed more long term. hold more meetings between Coop and non-coop holders, where all of this is discussed more than once per year.
I do want the DAO to get to a point where we can trust it with more and more decisions, so I agree with the direction, but I think right now it’s premature and the DAO should earn that.