Duration of Proposals Validation Process

Hi, friends, I’d like to continue the discussion on DAO parameters – see our Github issue.

The most important parameter to decide at this moment is the duration of the proposal validation process as this cannot be changed later in Aragon without reconfiguring the DAO from scratch. This is an irreversible parameter. Parametrizing the validation duration must take into account:

  1. The urgency of a typical upgrade. Emergency changes will be rapidly addressed by the Emergency Response Team (see the discussion thread on the ERT). However, it may also be costly to delay general upgrades more than is necessary.
  2. The time it takes for a distributed community to become aware of, digest and respond to proposals (see proposal pipeline below).
  3. Staker downtime (e.g. holidays, being off the grid, illness).

My initial opinion was a validation duration of 5 days, and I asked our community in our #nucypher-dao channel on Discord. The response was mixed, with an initial tie between supporters and opponents, although currently the latter are winning. This topic has already received excellent feedback on Discord and on the GitHub issue, and it was a very enriching experience for everyone, in my opinion.

One aspect that didn’t surface in that discussion was that this decision must also take into account community norms around the pipeline for proposal development and completion. For example, one possible pipeline from @arj (explained in more detail here) is:

  1. Community member submits initial proposal to Research & Discussion.
  2. The initial proposal receives feedback and/or volunteers for further collaborative development. If the general reception is positive, the proposal proceeds to the next step.
  3. Community member(s) work on implementing proposal, on their fork of the NuCypher main repository, if applicable.
  4. Community member creates PR(s) to the NuCypher repository and submits a formal proposal to Proposals, for final debate, tweaks, and (hopefully) approval.
  5. A DAO proposal validation period commences. The details (start date, end date, links, etc.) are also shared in Proposals.

Since we still need to address and finalize this issue, we need a better mechanism to gather sentiment from the community. What better than bootstrapping our brand new Discourse DAO forum with a poll!

Duration of proposal validation process
  • 5 days
  • 7 days
  • 10 days
  • 14 days
  • 21 days

0 voters

Participate by selecting one or two options, ranging from 5 to 21 days. We encourage you to use this thread to explain your choices. We will keep it open for the next 4 days, as we need to make a decision and finalize the deployment of the DAO contracts before network launch.

I feel that 10 days is a good number. Two weeks seems a bit long in terms of voting (a half of a month!?). I think that, ideally, there would be a lot of “evangelist” work for proposals long before and leading up to the vote duration.


I believe in the start project should be flexible enough to quickly react on environment changes. So smaller durations works best IMO. Like 5, 7 or 10 days

Hi folks, thanks for asking the community this. I recommend adopting an absolute minimum of 10 days, with a preference for two weeks. Realistically, I believe there will not be a lot of proposals being considered, and anything passing as a proposal will not be drastically impacted if it passes after 7, 10, or 14 days.

The real difference will be for token holder empowerment and engagement. There are a number of things that delay the information gathering and decision making process by token holders.

  • Folks often don’t pay attention to governance proposal discussions before they reach the voting stage, at which point they rush to learn about the proposal and make an informed decision. Relying on folks to stay in the loop during the discussion phase is not realistic if you desire to have diverse participation.

  • Many of your token holders will not be solo individuals - they will be funds, infrastructure providers, custodians, exchanges, etc. It takes time to identify internal stakeholders, gather input, ask the team questions, engage with the community, and finally cast the vote at many of these organizations.

  • The emergency response team will be on task to deal with emergencies and quickly react. It’s everyone else’s job to be responsible for the other side of the equation - thoughtful and intentional proposals and informed voting. Decreasing the length of time folks can participate will not help these folks do their part well.

  • The consequences of setting this duration to be too short are so much greater than making it too long. There’s no reason to take this risk.

Thank you!
Viktor from Bison Trails