After reading through everything here, I want to try to contribute some thoughts. Whatever you make out of my half baked criticisms, the endeavor of creating the charter is in my opinion not even a great, but necessary undertaking. Hats off to what you already did!
- Some general remarks
I think the first 19 articles contain a lot of good ideas. However they seem to be a weird mix of negative (art. 1, 2, 3, 4) and positive freedoms (Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)) and some duties (art. 5, 8, 9 ,12). The headlines though implicate that only positive freedoms are discussed. Besides the technical ambiguity, I think aiming to distribute negative freedoms might be a bit ambitious given that this power currently still sadly lies with our different national states. A declaration of strong alignment with for example the basic humans rights (containing mentioned freedom of speech or property rights) should still be a very good starting point.
Nonetheless I agree with the general idea of proposing some positive freedoms or maybe values as already suggested in the thread. As a society with voluntary affiliation it’s reasonable to formulate sophisticated terms of participation.
An exception is Art. 14, which in my opinion should not be part of the first draft at all. I try to explain my reasoning in the next point.
- The charter should only represent the status quo
As rightly mentioned the charter should be a living document. Therefore it is not necessary to incorporate future elements. Question marks still exist regarding a lot of design choices and social contracts aiming to regulate such elements by design have to be vague and are prone to corruption.
The main point I have in mind here is the discussion about councils. I think it’s undeniable that at this point in time the tooling in governance is not advanced enough to support such a system of councils. It’s not possible with current governance mechanisms to hold council members accountable in real time and that would be a minimum requirement for such a system. Even the more specialized DAODAO on Juno still isn’t there yet and we can already witness a huge power grab on the chain dividing several former decentralized duties between small groups of insiders. It’s not my intend to suggest any ill intend, but it’s a necessity that opportunities like that always trigger the paradox of power and end in vicious cycles. As long as there are no better checks and balances in place, centralized institutions will be the result of this foiling the whole intention of blockchain in the first place. My advice therefore would be to not include anything about councils yet and focus on improving tooling for governance first.
This also includes everything regarding the treasury. My criticism here goes even further. I didn’t hear one convincing argument so far why we should even found a treasury besides the community pool. I agree that we should strengthen the community pool, though. However, instead of starting a treasury from scratch we should think about more precise rules for funds out of the community pool. The standards for funding proposals should be more sophisticated and funds in general should only be given out in rates with the necessity of quarterly reports or something similar of receiving projects to track proceedings and if necessary stop further funding. Specific governance tooling for such procedures would also be a great asset.
- Defi apps should not be part of the charter
To be honest allocator and scheduler excite me personally not in the slightest and I have to admit to a deep feeling of distain about the current state of Defi. However, I acknowledge that it might be interesting projects and as long as a majority of atom holders agrees they should be deployed on consumer chains. That said, why there is a chapter about the allocator in the charter is a complete mystery to me. There should be a strict hierarchy between the hub and its consumer chains. While there might be a reason to establish some general rules about interaction between the hub and dApps on consumer chains, a foundational document like a charter can’t discuss every detail regarding a specific dApp.
- Positioning towards foundations
I’m only 1 1/2 years in the space and there is a strong possibility, that I miss something elementary here. As far as my struggle went so far to understand foundations like the ICF or AiB, it seems like there is no transparency regarding them (I’m not speaking about the topic of unclear delegations spearheaded by Jacob, but their spendings in general). Their members are deeply enrooted in the community and part of the group of biggest contributors to the space, though. I believe, it is necessary to solve this moral dilemma and restrict those entities and their members to influence votings disproportionate again and again. Therefore a charter should demand total transparency of this institutions to give all community members the opportunity to evaluate politics with the same amount of knowledge or treat those organizations as alien entities like e.g. cexes. I really hope that I’m missing something here, but it looks like the founders of many chains in the cosmos decided to give substantial amounts of power over the chains to opaque organizations while staging themselves as fighter for decentralization and transparency. This is not sufficient to found a real grassroots movement. If this charter wants to achieve legitimacy, it has to confront this obstacle, I believe.