Thank you for reviewing the Policy, and sharing these questions, @coffee-crusher.
• In a permissionless environment, participants can be targeted with unsolicited assets or tokens to force a technical COI violation. Article 4 relies on “Over-disclosure” as the solution. However, transparency alone does not address the risk of a malicious actor weaponizing this policy to disqualify specific participants and break quorums.
Ques: Can we include a provision that protects a member’s standing if they immediately disclose an unsolicited benefit and commit to a period of neutrality? This is a zero-cost way to prevent the policy from being used as a tool for governance sabotage.
The Policy does mention the case where a member discovers a COI after they already participated in a decision. Whether disclosed or not, under the Policy, a COI doesn’t disqualify a member from voting, so can not be used to attack a quorum.
• Article 5 allows a member with a conflict to participate if it “serves the decision process.” However, this is highly subjective. A participant with a significant financial interest could easily argue their expertise is indispensable to justify their continued influence over a decision.
Ques: Who makes the final determination on whether participation serves or harms the process? If the Screening Committee is the intended arbiter of this judgment call, that needs to be explicitly stated to ensure accountability.
Weighing those two factors is a great example of how nuanced Conflict of Interest is. The Screening Committee does makes these judgements when reviewing Endorsed Delegates.
Where this applies to a Screening Committee member, the Screening Committee may itself discuss and make a judgement. If that fails, then 4.5 Appeals and Complaints of the Screening Committee Charter applies, which could escalate to 4.2 Removal for Cause in the Constitution.
Also the call recording for: GM HoS - Conflicts of interest Policy is useful context for anyone understanding Conflict of Interest as we discussed the questions:
- whales ≠ malicious
- interest ≠ conflict
Thanks again for your feedback Coffee-Crusher.