[INT] PDAO #5 - Voting Policy
closed
Description

Dear Permanence DAO members and community,

In tandem with our recently refined CoI Policy, following our participation in the Decentralized Voices (DV) delegation on the 27th of March, 2025. we've been working on the formalization of our voting policy which has been adopted by the core membership as the guiding framework for all internal votes, treasury proposal evaluations, and on-chain voting activity. The policy aims to establish a transparent, consistent, and principled approach to voting and proposal evaluation in alignment with our responsibilities within the Polkadot ecosystem.

This proposal outlines the fundamental mechanisms of our voting system and defines its key operational rules as follows:

DOTs delegated to Permanence DAO through the Web3 Foundation’s Decentralized Voices program are governed by our recently updated CoI Policy:

  • The DAO abstains from voting on any proposal that directly or indirectly benefits any core member.
  • Only core members present at the time of DV election may vote using these delegated funds.
  • For votes using DAO-owned funds, only the member with a conflict is required to abstain; others may vote freely.

After our decision to separate the voting power of the DAO's own funds from the DOTs delegated by the DV program, voting power of the DAO's own funds will be distributed with a final 54% to 46% split between the core members and the community members respectively. The core members always retain a 54% majority at the least, and the split process is dynamic as more community members join to prevent any single community member of wielding too much voting power.

Proposals are categorized into five priority levels. Each level determines how urgently the DAO must act:

  • Priority 1–2 (High urgency): Structural or large treasury proposals. Require action within 1–2 weeks, with feedback and reminders sent throughout.
  • Priority 3 (Medium spenders): Make up one-third of all proposals. Require a 2-week deadline with minimal reminders.
  • Priority 4–5 (Low spenders/tippers): Require fast but minimal effort decisions.

The following outlines the quorum and majority requirements for each proposal track to be voted as Aye, in cases where the majority of votes are Abstain, the final vote is cast as Abstain:​

  • Priority 1 (e.g., Root, Fellowship Admin): 60% quorum, 57% majority.​
  • Priority 2 (e.g., Big Spender, Treasurer): 60% quorum, 57% majority.​
  • Priority 3 (Medium Spender): 50% quorum, 50% majority.​
  • Priority 4 (Small Spender, Big Tipper): 35% quorum, 50% majority.​
  • Priority 5 (Small Tipper): 30% quorum, 50% majority.​

The detailed voting policy will be posted in its entirety on our public document hub for new members and the Polkadot community to familiarize themselves. The policy will be in effect after the internal vote is concluded until further voting by the core members to change parts, or the whole if it. Failure to comply with the voting policy outlined above may result in demotion from the core membership and may, for repeat offenders and after taking an internal vote, result in removal from the DAO.

Please vote at your convenience. Members and the wider community are welcome to suggest additions or amendments.

Kind regards.

Optionssingle

Votes·8

1ZSP...vx6w
1ZSP...vx6w
1ZSPR3zNg5Po3obkhXTPR95DepNBzBZ3CyomHXGHK9Uvx6w
Aye
# 1
1xzc...1bX6
1xzc...1bX6
1xzcLSwo7xBFkJYZiL4EHaqFpuPTkH641E3V43W4cuk1bX6
Aye
# 1
12Hi...E9N3
12Hi...E9N3
12His7t3EJ38tjdBbivUzWQeaNCLKfMqtKp1Ed3xHMyCE9N3
Aye
# 1
13ED...KQbF
13ED...KQbF
13EDmaUe89xXocPppFmuoAZaCsckaJy3deAyVyiykk1zKQbF
Aye
# 1
12Kt...DCoJ
12Kt...DCoJ
12KtA8mtfsK1CyQb4utLiwG3ao22z77w2cM2GqnaL2RiDCoJ
Aye
# 1
15fT...yBzL
15fT...yBzL
15fTH34bbKGMUjF1bLmTqxPYgpg481imThwhWcQfCyktyBzL
Nay
# 2
This proposal only adds the 50% abstain case on top of our foundational voting policy, as documented in our DV application and document portal. Although I find the addition and the formalization of the policy necessary, due to its timing, this is bound to be perceived as an effort to "save" the three member proposals that are being nay'ed according to the existing policy. I have to note that the suggestion for change is not coming from the proposer of this update, therefore I commend him for taking the initiative to voice a request in the community. I think voting on the addition of the abstain policy right at this time is hurtful to the DAO's integrity and value-based decision-making. I would definitely aye at a less sensitive time, but I have to nay this at this point.
14Gn...YLEh
14Gn...YLEh
14Gn7SEmCgMX7Ukuppnw5TRjA7pao2HFpuJo39frB42tYLEh
Aye
# 1
12s6...nE8h
12s6...nE8h
12s6UMSSfE2bNxtYrJc6eeuZ7UxQnRpUzaAh1gPQrGNFnE8h
Aye
# 1

Discussions·0

No current comments
Information
Snapshot
Timestamp
Created
Apr 19 2025 09:24
Start date
Apr 18 2025 23:00
End date
Apr 25 2025 23:00
Results
Voters
8
one-person-one-vote
Aye
7 VOTE
 
Nay
1 VOTE
 
Abstain
0 VOTE
 
© 2025 OpenSquare. All Rights Reserved.