[Withdrawn/Resolved] Cosmos Hub Constitution (CHC) DAO

Hub Proposals Proposal Ideas
1

Cosmos Hub Community:

ATOM’s already great, it’s just swimming in the slumps. As an independent, been an advocate for the Atom One vision for a few years and despite 2.0 seemingly having taken over the Cosmos Hub, with all due respect, humbly seeking to see if we could collectively form a team.

Fail or proceed, would greatly appreciate your constructive/critical feedback. Thank you :pray:

CHC Foundation DAO

A. MISSION/PURPOSE: Help maintain and secure 2/3 staked.

With a Cosmos Hub Constitution (CHC) Foundation DAO, in collaboration with the Cosmos Hub community, the aim is to champion three (out of the five) core values of the Hub:

• Decentralization
• Security
• Simplicity

CHC DAO will seek to restore, at the very least maintain, the original vision for the Cosmos Hub. Within the current climate of Cosmos Hub, forming the CHC DAO could alleviate some of the burden on public governance and make way for other, more (understandably so) self-serving committees. With this proposal, the aim is to form a team drawn from within the Cosmos Hub community, to design/modify the program and actively run it, as opposed to simply delegating the work to a third-party service provider that isn’t aligned with the Cosmos Hub staking community.

1.The existing Hub issues that can be solved through this program are:

• 2/3 (66%) stake to secure the Cosmos Hub
• Losing aligned developers to other L1s/ecosystems
• Focus on onboarding Go/Gno developers
• Insufficient funding for truer decentralized systems/public goods
• Idle capital in the community pool or passed proposals
• Growth risk aversion
• Low support for minority teams fighting for the original values and integrity of the Hub

2.The grant program solves these problems through:**

• Liaising between decentralized teams
• Minimizing risk through due diligence
• Supporting smaller teams
• Bringing new developers to the Hub
• Efficiently deploying capital to ensure R&D & growth at the Hub.

**3. Secondary Objective (If community believes we can implement a GRANT portion to this proposal):

Any grants provided through CHC DAO will solely focus on open sourced public goods and ecosystem initiatives that focus on value accrual back to ATOM and stakers vs. passive holders. If we cannot receive funding from the CP for a grants portion, perhaps we can utilize the stake rewards for two purposes, outside the main objective to retake to help reach the 2/3 goal:

• Fund grants program
• Reallocate to Cosmos Hub CP

B. TEAM:

1.Reviewer Committee

A team of 9 will be on the Reviewer Committee in charge of allocating grants. These 9 people will each play a functional role on the team, with the goal of creating a high-performance team, and also will steward the Multisig ensuring accountability regarding grant approval.

  1. Program Manager
  2. Program Manager
  3. Program Coordinator
  4. Technical Lead
  5. Reviewer
  6. Reviewer
  7. Reviewer (TBD)
  8. Reviewer (TBD)
  9. Reviewer (TBD)

2.Oversight Committee

The Oversight, Accountability & Transparency Committee represents an opportunity to raise the bar and restore trust within the community. Oversight and accountability have often proved to be missing pieces in blockchain governance and ever more so today. That is why we want to adopt an innovative approach where there is an oversight and accountability function built in from day one as an integral part of the grant program and not something that would be implemented ad hoc. By establishing a flow of information about workings and status of CHC DAO, the entire Cosmos community can then be in a position to evaluate the efficacy of the program. The Oversight team consists of three members:

  1. Senior:
  2. Auditor/Controller
  3. Coordinator

**3. Marketing/Report Committee

To utilize funds, perhaps we can convert two/three reviewers from the Reviewer Committee to create this Marketing committee. Consolidating news into this team could help alleviate sporadic Cosmos Hub/Cosmos Ecosystem news to keep aligned stakeholders (vs. passive holders) informed about important developments in governance, new/upgraded technical features, ICS/product launches and consolidate community concerns/discussions.

Main objective for this committee is to educate and update the priority, Cosmos Hub community, and secondarily the broader Cosmos ecosystem. As a trickle effect, the hope is to help shepherd in new users/devs/investors.

  1. Content Host
  2. Graphic Designer/Multimedia Specialist
  3. Content Editor

Deliverables: Test one monthly video, then maintain or progress frequency

C. BUDGET

(@$4.6, respective to todays price)

1.One-Time legal structure set up fee: $70,489.44 (likely to change/TBD!) - 7.4%

2.Headcount for Reviewer Committee: $546,578.93 - 57.38%

• Two full-time Program Managers
• One Part Time Technical lead
• Four part-time Community Review Panel Participants
• One part-time Program Coordinator

3.Headcount for Oversight Committee: $187,940.09 - 19.73%

• Three part-time members

4.Due Diligence Consultants: $40,293.29 - 4.23%

5.Operational Expenses: $107,353.51 - 11.27%

• Website: Creation, hosting, maintenance, basic SEO
• Ops: Software licenses; human and/or virtual assistant for additional support
• Outreach: Marketing, Promotion, Education

(1-5) TOTAL: $952,560 (12% total budget @$4.6, respective to todays price)

6.Dedicated Stake: $6,985,440 - 88% Total Budget

7.Total Budget: $7,938,000 usd / 1.71 mil ATOM (@$4.6, respective to todays price)

8.Unspent amount: kept in the CHC DAO program for the second mandate or returned to the community pool if the program is discontinued.

Legal setup is a one-time activity and is budgeted to include structure set-up, filing fees, registered office fees, mandatory secretary/supervisor and director fee.

D. TIMEFRAME

Here are the different steps envisioned for the implementation and bootstrapping of the CHC DAO:

1.Months 0-2: set up the organization, create the program & workflows, setup website and proposal intake system, and build-up social media presence

2.Months 2-9: Grant program in full steam, proposals are coming in, being reviewed, and being funded, and most of the budget is assigned to grants

3.End of Month 9: Oversight committee to produce the grant program end of mandate report. Following the grant program end of mandate report, the community can either:

(a) Maintain confidence in the team behind the grant program and renew the mandate
(b) Terminate the program, in which case unspent funds are returned to the community pool

**Disclaimer:
This prop has respectfully been modeled after the Cosmos Hub Grant (AADAO) Proposal :saluting_face:

P.S. I’ve cooked up (developed/designed) the visuals showing how all this could be mapped out, from a Cosmos Hub Constitution (CHC) Foundations page, leading to a Token Transfer app. The raw layout is ready to present and would happily share once feedback on the above is received.

2

Unfortunately, that will be a straightforward no from us. You propose to establish an entirely new organization rather than working to improve the existing one. While differing opinions and viewpoints on certain subjects are natural, at Govmos, we will always prioritize debate, collaboration, and consensus over secession and the creation of duplicate forks. The motivation behind creating this DAO appears to be driven by political views and an attempt to use community funds to further those political aims. We cannot, and will not, support such a use of community funds. We already have a grant DAO, and we will oppose any attempt to create a second one as long as the current one is active and fulfilling its duties. While some individuals may have issues with the @ATOMAcceleratorDAO and publicly criticize it, we have seen nothing but baseless claims and wild theories so far.

pro-delegators-sign

8 Likes
3

Thanks so much for your time and valuable feedback @Govmos :saluting_face:

Was expecting pushback and find your response completely understandable. This was simply a temperature check and again, a means to collaborate with the broader community to form a grassroots team.

Understanding the current situation of how things SEEM to be creeping towards centralization, furthering 2.0’s agenda, this DAO would be an attempt to help champion the opposite, while coexisting in harmony.

Lets take out the grant portion!

Operations are meant to be minimal, help secure 2/3 by staking and REstaking (no selling/dumping) the dedicated stake. Any other concerns regarding this prop idea, i’m all ears, really :handshake:

I understand Govmos was conceived through AADAO, so the defensive stance is warranted. Through time, AADAO undeniably continues to show improvement and I can only but salute their team, especially with the newest member on board (…really though - truly thankful for her contributions thus far as the newest addition :hand_with_index_finger_and_thumb_crossed:).

1 Like
4

So you want the Hub to foot the bill on setting up an opposition party to create more obstruction and division for a minority political party? Isn’t that the whole point of Atom One anyway? A fork that aims to “guide the Hub back toward first principles” or something?

AiB has fat bags of Atom. Surely they’d provide funding for this type of thing, if it’s deemed worthwhile.

1 Like
5

Ty @tknox35 for taking time to look into this prop idea :pray:

Specifically here for ATOM’s growth and security bc truer decentralization doesn’t seem to be happening, at least not yet. Yeah I think thats a big part of what ATOM One aims for, but im here discussing concerns for the former.

Lets stray from politics. Regardless if your a One or 2.0 advocate, the fact is theres a lot of selling/dumping vs. staking.

Imagine having a dedicated DAO solely aiming to stabilize security through minimal action via stake n’ restake. As time goes on, like the AADAO, it could prove itself to expand into/revisit, say the grants & marketing/reporting side - but those are secondary issues. The sole mission/the priority for this prop idea is to help ensure 2/3 stake is reached and maintained, this way other more self-aligned committees can continue developing from their end. Win/win, no?

We can coexist.

6

Thank you for the positive feedback on your post. We believe your vision for a grant DAO aligns much more closely with AtomOne’s vision. We are also prime contributors to this ecosystem, having supported the constitution framework while participating in multiple working groups. We actually embrace both the Hub’s and AtomOne’s vision. Both have their own brilliance as well as areas for critique. We sincerely believe that the fork was a necessary divergence, allowing both visions to flourish independently. Our hope is that, in the future, these two contrasting visions will eventually reunite, combining the best aspects of both worlds.

We think your proposal would be better suited for the AtomOne constitution process, where you could potentially take on a role within the grant DAO that will exist in that ecosystem. A proposition in Cosmos Hub would mostly resemble a double expenditure for uncertain added value.

2 Likes
7

LESGO! appreciate your continued engagement and feedback @Govmos :handshake:

Agreed, this could be better suited within AtomOne’s ecosystem, but would like to reemphasize that im here for helping secure ATOM through current sell pressures, regardless of side. Respect can be given despite differences :saluting_face: so please understand im not dismissing Govmos teams contributions. Keep thriving! Rooting for our collective growth.

Maybe this DAO, with the potential token transfer dapp I mentioned earlier, could further serve as a bridge for the previously proposed Photon, but thats another story.

Regarding #'s, lets stray from CP for a sec. I see the Aid Proposal for Earthquake Survivors in Türkiye post. What if we can reallocate those funds to test the viability of this DAO idea and for a specific time frame? Prove itself and if it doesn’t work after N time, route the funds directly back into the CP - no questions asked.

8

After immediate responses:

• Stray from CP. Proposing reallocation of the idle ATOM from Aid Prop
• GRANT portion from this DAO = excluded
• Direct focus → “Dedicated Stake” to help achieve the Mission: Help maintain and secure 2/3

If the Cosmos Hub community deems reallocating the budget from Aid Prop to help form a CHC Foundation DAO:

C 1-5 total (initial post) - 12% Total Budget
• $120,105.59 usd / 25,179 ATOM

Dedicated Stake: - 88% total budget
• $880,774.35 usd / 184,648.64 ATOM

Total Budget:
• $1,000,879.94 usd / 209,828 ATOM

Will anticipate/appreciate continued feedback

9

No, it sounds like you just want the money.

10

Listen here you sexy Tiger, I salute your vigorous spirit in defending our CP, we need more people like you and I appreciate the constructive feedback. Jokes aside, thank you for joining this thread :saluting_face:.

Undeniably, that is exactly what this DAO prop is asking for, funding (“money”). The why, however? Despite being a minority voice, to further decentralize a centralizing Cosmos Hub community and help steward ATOM for a dedicated stake.

To reemphasize the DAO’s mission: Help maintain and secure 2/3.

I don’t believe this is an unreasonable ask, especially to prove itself out. Noting the original prop here was modeled after AADAO, who continues to win my respect over time, if DAO’s like them can start their journey by granting “money” to ridiculous props like “Cosmos Millions,” the formation of this DAO is not farfetched, imo. This prop has been edited to stray from the CP and now proposing reallocating idle ATOM.

If only we started off with a foundational constitution to avoid politicizing and fostering unconstructive conversations, but that’s another story!