Proposal: Scroll DAO Constitution

Governance Iterations
,
42

Thank you for this @eugene - we have little to add given the extensive responses in this thread. We would however, be interested in who is on the security council or at least in the running at this stage. Can this information be shared?

3 Likes
43

Exactly, that’s what I’m suggesting. It doesn’t need to be too detailed, as that would require an in-depth debate, but the process should clearly outline its purpose. Otherwise, the focus of the constitution’s content or the rationale behind certain actions could eventually be lost.

I don’t have much more to add beyond what I’ve already suggested.

The only thing I would add is that, given the significant reliance of the Constitution on what the governance docs define, there could be a mention of this dependency and a note that the governance docs are currently managed by the Foundation until they reach a sufficient level of consolidation to be entrusted to the DAO.

1 Like
44

Linking to the announcement of the Security Council. Thanks to @eugenia for sharing the announcement in the chat!

6 Likes
45

Having reviewed the feedback integration and latest updates, I appreciate the changes made to strengthen the Constitution, particularly around delegate endorsements, voting cycles, and transparency commitments.

The revised proposal addresses concerns raised by the community while maintaining necessary safeguards during the DAO’s initial phase. I support moving this forward to a vote.

Thanks to @eugene for incorporating the community feedback in such a thorough way.

1 Like
46

After reviewing the proposal, our comments were addressed in the revised proposals and discussions above. We think this proposal is enough to move forward as the first installment of the Scroll DAO Constitution.

As a verified delegate, I consider this proposal ready for a vote.

1 Like
47

We’ve reviewed this in depth and accounting for the discussions and revisions, we believe this is in a great spot.

As a verified delegate, we consider this proposal ready for a vote.

1 Like
48

This constitution looks excellent. Great combo of clarity & conciseness. Well done!

//

As a verified delegate, I consider this proposal ready for a vote.

1 Like
49

We are pleased with the ongoing discussion and current state of the Constitution. As a verified delegate, we believe this proposal is ready for a vote.

50

Upon incorporating feedback, this version comprises a thoughtful v1 of the Scroll DAO Constitution.

As a verified delegate, we believe this proposal is ready for a vote.

51

Sharing an update. Due to the SAFE issues and delays with SAFE on Scroll, we have not been able to post this proposal yet. As a result, we are going to push out the March voting cycle. We’ll follow up as soon as we have some clarity on timing

2 Likes
52

The following reflects the views of L2BEAT’s governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas. It’s based on their combined research, fact-checking, and ideation.

We’re voting FOR the proposal.

We appreciate Eugene’s work in drafting Scroll DAO’s Constitution and addressing all the essential parts covered by such a document. We understand that the Constitution’s foundational idea is to be a living document that will be updated in the future to account for potential changes or the progressive decentralization of the DAO.

With that in mind, we see the proposed Constitution more like a social agreement and an operational document rather than a binding thing. The way we understand things right now, governance doesn’t have factual control over either the Foundation or smart contracts, so it doesn’t make sense to expect the Constitution to bind delegates and other stakeholders materially.

However, we feel that it is a good starting point for the formation of community governance structures as an advisory body and growth support mechanism for the Scroll ecosystem. We hope that in further steps of progressive decentralisation, the governance will be able to take more direct, hands-on control over various aspects of the ecosystem.

4 Likes
53

Here is our rationale for voting in favor of passing the Scroll Governance Constitution:

Ethereum TGU believes this is a crucial proposal for establishing the foundation of the Scroll Governance process. In terms of structure and clarity, the proposal is well-designed.

We also appreciate that it includes a mechanism for future upgrades and updates, which we consider an essential aspect. Additionally, we find that the document clearly outlines responsibilities.

By passing this proposal, we aim to promote participation among delegates and attract new ones to the protocol.

2 Likes
54

I am voting FOR, for this proposal. The constitution captures that the DAO is being structured in a way, that we move towards full decentralisation over time, ensuring a gradual and stable transition.

The Security Council is required to publicly report emergency actions, adding a layer of accountability. Clear delineation between Scroll Foundation, Governance Facilitators, Security Council, and SCR holders ensures checks and balances.

I do have worries that the Scroll Foundation’s influence at this early stage would mean that full decentralization is still a long-term goal.

Overall, this governance framework is a strong foundation for ScrollDAO’s progressive decentralization, but ongoing adjustments will be necessary to ensure that power is effectively distributed among the community over time.

2 Likes
55

Here’s my negation game rationale for my vote.

1 Like
58

LobbyFi voted FOR since there was one lobbyist who bid for FOR option. His bid exceeded the threshold, which is at 10% of the instant buy which has been chosen for this proposal.

59

Revision 1: Addition of DAO Purpose Statement

Section Changed: Article I: Governance Principles

Change:
Added: “Purpose: The Scroll DAO exists to progressively decentralize the governance of the Scroll protocol and its associated technologies, ensuring community-driven stewardship of the ecosystem.”

Justification:
This addition directly addresses the concern that the Constitution did not clearly define the purpose of the DAO.

Supporting feedback: Priority #10 from @pedro (SimScore 37%): “My first comment is regarding the content: this Constitution outlines the governance principles and processes of the DAO. However, it makes no reference to what the DAO actually governs. The organization exists for a purpose—to decentralize the governance of the technology that aims to be decentralized. Why does the DAO exist?”

The change adds a clear purpose statement that aligns with progressive decentralization mentioned in the Governance Principles and addresses the fundamental concern that the document previously lacked a statement about why the DAO exists in the first place.

60

Revision 2: Modified Temperature Check Requirements

Section Changed: Article III: DAO Governance Proposal and Voting Procedures (Proposal Drafting and Creation Phase)

Change:
Removed: “A proposal shall pass a ‘temperature check’ mechanism, which requires at least 3 endorsements from Verified Delegates on the Scroll DAO forum, in order to proceed.”

Added: “A proposal shall pass a ‘temperature check’ mechanism, which requires at least 3 endorsements from Verified Delegates and 1 endorsement from the Foundation on the Scroll DAO forum, in order to proceed. Delegates and the Foundation must signal their endorsement within 7 days from the proposal’s posting date.”

Justification:
This revision modifies the temperature check requirements to include the Foundation’s endorsement and adds a timeframe for receiving endorsements.

  • Supporting feedback: Priority #9 from @HumbertoBesso (SimScore 37%): “A proposal shall pass a ‘temperature check’ mechanism, which requires at least 5 endorsements from Verified Delegates + the Scroll Foundation within a post at the Scroll DAO forum, in order to proceed.”
  • Supporting feedback: Priority #13 from @chris_areta (SimScore 37%): “We also propose inserting a timeframe or window within which delegates and the foundation are required to signal their endorsement for a proposal. This will ensure that contributors are not arbitrarily left in the dark as to the status of their proposal and know when to move on or redirect effort. This window could be something like ‘within X days of the next voting cycle.’”
  • Supporting feedback: Priority #4 from @SeedGov (SimScore 41%): “Actually was referring specifically to the foundation endorsement. It makes sense to have delegates endorsement for a proposal but since with the current design the submission is already gatekeeped by foundation that extra foundation endorsement might be redundant. In other words, the discretionary power of moving a proposal to a vote would also apply to endorsing a proposal or not.”

The change acknowledges the community’s desire for more clarity in the endorsement process, adds the Foundation’s explicit role in endorsements, and establishes a clear timeframe to prevent proposals from being left in limbo.