Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
rafa
@rafa
Currently, we’re on the path of protocolizing digital governance. Yet it seems to be converging on esoteric jargon and functions, is there a path out? Is there something else that won’t lead us to localized ossification with niche standards, procedures, and a working class of governance technical support?
5 replies
2 recasts
78 reactions
krel
@krel
whats the worst jargon? im too deep to realize probs
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
rafa
@rafa
I’m only becoming conscious of it now, but basically DAOs have evolved an entire vocabulary. Some examples: “Vote with Reason” “Proposal” “Queue” “Vote Delay” “Voting Period” “Governor” “Timelock” “Transfer” “Quorum” “Threshold”
1 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
Spencer Graham 🧢
@spengrah.eth
Some of these are pretty general concepts. To me, “Governor” is probably the likeliest to cause confusion since it’s a very general term used to refer to a specific member of the category. “Vote Delay” is not the clearest label. If anything, MolochDAO vernacular is the biggest offender here. Ragequit, loot, shamans, minions, etc
1 reply
0 recast
5 reactions
Spencer Graham 🧢
@spengrah.eth
That said, there is most definitely a really challenging balance between terminology specific enough for high quality discourse vs hyper-esotericism or exclusionary language. My current best thinking is to build on the existing language of governance rather than try to create our own (the Moloch meme was needed at the time but recently even DAOhaus has taken steps to moved away from some of the terminology)
1 reply
0 recast
6 reactions
