If the community has agreed to use a governance model similar to that used by the Compound community, can I suggest a proposal that documents the details of this governance approach specifically tailored to the Pangolin community and voted on by us?
By way of background, Compound’'s governance model can be found here: Compound | Docs - Governance
I’m happy to help pull the operational governance together under this proposal (i.e. the governance used by the humans) and assist a volunteer experienced in developing the Pangolin platform to draft the technical governance requirements (how the smart contract code is submitted, timelocks, voting thresholds etc).
As part of this documentation I suggest the community consider the following issues that will be relevant in the medium term:
In the US (at least), the regulators will look at the level of community control over the management decisions made on the platform. That could make the difference between having a compliant and non-compliant platform from a securities standpoint.
A detailed analysis of the DAO was conducted by the SEC a few years ago and they laid out the features of the DAO that caused them concern. The community should aim to avoid those structural flaws (which had little to do with the DAOs treasury and more to do with who was making key decisions in managing the DAO overall). See: SEC.gov | SEC Issues Investigative Report Concluding DAO Tokens, a Digital Asset, Were Securities
Simply assigning voting rights to PNG holders is insufficient. The community needs greater levels of oversight and control regarding issues such as how proposals are submitted and considered and who is vetting the proposals after submission.
If (for example) proposal managers have veto rights or ability to re-order the sequence of proposals (i.e. have management style powers), we should clarify how they were selected (and by whom) and who they are (including requiring basic qualifications etc). I think it would be a good idea to formalise this - this role was another area that received close scrutiny in the SEC report. If the community feels it’s too early to implement this, we can simply develop the model but leave implementation of the formal processes until later in the roadmap (for example, leave this issue until community proposal managers are being paid from the Community Fund).
The governance model itself is a matter that needs careful consideration. If we inherit Compound’s governance model, that might be a good start to avoid re-inventing the wheel (we’ll need to check on copyright and licensing issues!) so assuming we can start there, I propose that this community review and specifically vote for that model for use on Pangolin. I’m not convinced that the Compound model addresses the structural problems I’ve flagged above. We should aim to improve that model and also take advantage of latest developments in the space as it is rapidly evolving.
This is simply a high level overview of the task so I’m happy to take suggestions as to other areas of the governance model that should be formalised.