[soared]

Funny that the founder can just submit to vote what is effectively “I need $3M USD and if that runs out additional $1M sums in perpetuity” with zero oversight on how it’s spent, outside of claiming it will be spent on legal costs.

[throw101010]

Not sure if it's funny, but in a DAO often anyone can make a proposal (usually following a certain process and holding a small amount of thr governance token). They are calling for the token holders to give their opinion or approval for a transaction.

It will be funny if the vote reveals the founder has a majority of the tokens and can vote himself these funds from the DAO's treasury. But if the token is well distributed in the DAO and the community surrounding it, and the proposal passes the vote, I don't really see how it is funny. It is just how governance works in a DAO.

Personally, with the lack of details in this proposal I will vote against it, but at this stage it is most likely the kind of input the proposer is expecting, before the actual vote.

[rabf]

Its funny how the only reasonable commenter in this discussion has to use a throwaway account!

[soared]

My point is more so that if someone asked for a couple million (or potentially unlimited millions), you’d expect clear breakouts of how it would be spent, how they’d prove to be spending it on the states purpose, what law firm they’re using, what needs to occur for another million to be pulled out, what needs to occur for millions to stop being pulled out, how often they’ll report out on what they’re spending it on, how they’ll be held accountable, etc.

[throw101010]

Agreed, the terms were not clear, and as I've guessed the proposer has updated it based on the community input.

Sometimes when you write these things it's hard to nail down everthing and you can miss a scope creep because you assume honesty on your end for example. I think that it shows a healthy governance process if people can give their interpretation and desires and the proposer updates their proposal accordingly.

The fact he is unwilling to share more data in public about the case is problematic though, I get the issues with talking about an open case. One possibility would be to get the community to vote to elect a comittee of contributors who have demonstrated their care for the DAO to review the documents under NDA, same for reviewing the fees and they would vote on the relevance of such a fund (and its extent) to protect the DAO or not instead.

[theptip]

That is about what would happen in a board meeting. And the final edit ($1m top-ups are limited to twice, then come back and ask for approval again) seems like a reasonable response.

Presumably there is some audit trail on expenses after the fact?

[soared]

Yeah that’s what I mean - boards and real companies have audits/etc. although if sushi is a c-Corp maybe they do need to submit documentation when they do taxes and such.

[p_j_w]

If you can't trust people in crypto, though, who CAN you trust?

[ejanus]

That's pure madness.

[gabereiser]

"I won't comment on legal matters" "But I'm asking for legal funds" I'm asking for funds too. On matters I can't discuss. Does that apply too?

/s