In crypto, startups typically don’t launch a DAO until they have something significant for a community to govern, with proven product market fit. This is because governance of established projects through direct democracy is purposefully slow, whereas startups need to be able to move quickly, to try new things, and to pivot in strategy from time to time.
Euler currently finds itself in the unusual circumstance of having to compete like a startup, but under the constraints of a governance process designed for a more mature project. We therefore propose to move to a more optimistic model of governance, where the Euler Foundation documents proposed changes in the forum and allows the community to hold a quick fire vote if there is strong disagreement. This would ensure that governance does not hinder fast execution, allowing Euler to be more nimble as it regrows its position in the market.
100% agree, I would even say to propose a period of time where the DAO is no longer active until the protocol has reached a certain stage and leave full powers to Euler labs and foundation during this period.
Tributary supports this effort. Euler is a racecar constrained by a rev-limiter. Let’s remove it.
This support is conditional to clarity on veto conditions and a time limit (our suggestion is 2 years) in which renewing this system is NOT automatically approved.
2 years seems a bit much to me, I would rather suggest unlimited time until the community has decided through an EIP that it is time to move back to a DAO system.
This leaves the possibility of returning when the time comes to an EIP voting system without waiting 2 years.
Theia supports the decision to transition to an optimistic governance model. EVM lending markets are highly competitive and require fast paced decision making. It’s important for Euler to be in the best position to grow its market share, and we believe that this is an important step in improving its competitiveness
I think that given the temperature check, the Euler Foundation can now submit an RFC as soon as it is ready or post it directly below by taking this topic as an RFC, this will save us time in the procedure of an upcoming EIP.
Anthias Labs supports this optimistic governance model for the Foundation. And we agree with @Seini that the conclusion of this system should be enabled by an EIP when the DAO feels appropriate.
We are all largely in agreement here but I’d like to reemphasise the importance of having a set date in which power is automatically returned. There should be a clear, final date to this system or else we may risk (while not a direct comparison) reflecting the example of the struggle currently happening on Optimism. This will not be conducive to continued protocol development.
Time is of the essence here: I’m ready to bring it to a vote and I will vote in favour on the condition that clear “quick fire vote” conditions are established. These clear conditions will help to avoid communication issues later on.
With regard to a set time period for optimistic governance we believe rather than setting a time limit on the Foundation’s ability to take action on behalf of the DAO optimistically, the DAO is able to revoke optimistic governance at any point by submitting an EIP.
In order to mobilise initiatives to support the ecosystem as swiftly as possible, we would like to move forward with optimistic governance from today. If there are objections, you are encouraged to share your feedback here and/or put forward an EIP to revoke the action.
In the coming weeks and months there will continue to be matters that will be put to a DAO vote. The Euler community will continue to govern the protocol.
In order to support open lines of communication between the community and the Foundation as we move forward, there will be monthly office hours hosted by the Foundation. Please keep an eye on the forum next week for more details.