Proposal: Governance v2 Authors: @dropnerd#1449, @huh.eth#5761, @Lithium#2336 There are several problems with our current governance model. - Our tooling is insufficient for us to understand what our quorum should be for any given vote. - Several proposals have reached consensus but failed to pass our quorum rule. This includes the original governance proposal! - 3 days is too slow for volunteers to react to NounsDAO votes and slows down planning and execution. This proposal addresses these shortcomings. Details We propose: 1. Set the quorum at 35 million SHARK tokens. This targets 10%, and the authors suggest that we raise this in the future to match token counts. 2. Approve former proposals that technically failed quorum but had majority support. - Closing the DAO: https://snapshot.org/#/sharkdao.eth/proposal/QmdPS7cNu3X61Dsvfs1wd2rC5UTkNcHQYMHhj49N1fcoj1) - Authorizing Noun Bidding: https://snapshot.org/#/sharkdao.eth/proposal/QmbCwVaKUbmUyDRFihQdWPg99EnQTW7ZV4DwSXyGZ7mt9M - Listing on Sushiswap: https://snapshot.org/#/sharkdao.eth/proposal/QmT7y9h6QrSXz79PPbYftYtNvPG83ybXFSmUzxhzWKvPHw (We leave out governance v1 to prevent any unforeseen conflicts from making the governance proposal unclear.) 3. Define the process for adopting a proposal. We take inspiration from the governance v1 proposal. - The proposer starts a thread in #discuss-proposals containing a draft of the full text of the proposal. We recommend consulting previous proposals for a format. This thread should collect feedback for at least **24 hours**. This period is for members to debate and add pros and cons to the proposal. Moving to the next step requires two :white_check_mark: emojis, including one from the original proposer. We recommend that there be emoji consensus before proceeding. - Once the thread meets the two conditions, the proposer starts a thread in #vote containing a link to the Snapshot vote. The Snapshot contains the final text of the proposal. This vote must be open for at least **24 hours** (reduced from 48 hours). This period is for members to approve or disapprove a proposal that has feedback. Pros: - We resolve the uncertain status of the previous proposals that technically failed quorum. - We make it easier to check for the presence of a quorum. Cons: - We will go below 10% quorum threshold if this threshold is not adjusted in time. - It could be more expressive of the voters' will if we split out the consideration of all previous proposals. - Shortening the voting period will decrease the participation rate among the busy.