Governance Discussion

[tspoff]

The parties with power to change the system are the Core Devs and a DAO of stakeholders for each loan.

The Core Devs power is intended for rapid response in contract emergencies. To that end, they can pause any contracts in the system.

However, the DAO holders have to vote on any changes they propose, and can unpause the system. They can also ban the devs from pausing if they abuse their power.

What changes are possible:

• Logic upgrades / bug fixes, say of the Terms Contract.
• Otherwise changing the address of a core contract
• Choosing to go around Dharma (intended if dharma fails), by unlocking the "native backup repayment process" that lies dormant on each Crowdfund contract.

We're skipping renegotiations of terms for now - it's messy even in "real life".

[tspoff]

Possible governance providers:

• DAOStack
• Aragon

[tspoff]

From DAOstack Q/A:

What is the difference between Aragon and DAOstack?
DAOstack is a modular governance framework for decentralized organizations at scale, while Aragon is more of a general suite for blockchain-based organizational management.

They also think Aragon has a nicer UI

[tspoff]

With DAOStack, we could create a DAO that generates other DAO's through the DAOCreator scheme.
The loan factory could create a dao for each loan, just might be too heavy and obv could be done with less gas.

[onggunhao]

@tspoff I like the flexibility of an individual DAO for each loan, although we are probably far away from that problem. I would like to work with DAOstack though, it seems like a very interesting project