Inspired by the call to form the NDC, I am sharing with the NEAR community a proposal that has been developed with a more pragmatic, simple, and swift approach in order to increase our chances of success (paraphrasing NDC_Comms).
This proposal has a design that is closer to the model presented in the video than the current model being developed in the CWG. This allows for greater participation from future representatives of the NDC, avoiding bureaucracy and rigidity in the development process.
Below are the documents that can lead to the rising of the NDC in the coming weeks:
Note: My intention is not to create unnecessary competition with other proposals. I believe that future implementations may require modifications or additional resources in the future. However, I believe that the best solutions are found during ongoing processes.
The use of these materials for other good purposes is permitted.
The main differences with the main “GWG” models and this one are:
There is no “Transparency Team”, as this is an obligation for all teams and sub-DAOs. The creation of a special team with decision-making responsibilities as presented by GWG will unbalance the power dynamics. The famous: “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”
References: [1][2]
The suggested voting form is token weight for all positions (elected or contracted). This does not apply to the internal voting form of future NDC teams, which will have different ways of doing it. This is a simplified model and contrary to the discussions of having two or more forms of votes that present unnecessary complexities that do not result in solving problems, potentially creating others. The decision of a universal voting choice limits the types of possible attacks to Token Weight, which is the practice where the industry has consolidated. Implementations such as Proof of Humanity, Quadratic Votes, etc, can be developed in the future and with more tests.
References: [1][2][3]
Two legal framework models that can be used as reference for the NDC and nodes.
Promotion of the veto ability of the House of Merit over the House of Stake, this helps to protect the NDC against potential tokenomics attacks on the House of Stake. In addition to the balance between the houses and clear need for dialogue. [1][2]
Regarding the suggested remunerations, I recommend users to analyze the difference between the “subsidiary” and “contractual” regime before the amounts. A subsidy, unlike a salary, is composed of a single portion, and cannot be increased by bonuses, additional or bonuses. The Executive Council has the highest salaries due to the demand, these professionals will be competed with all markets. [1]
The reduction of initial expenses in millions of dollars compared to the initial budget and over one million dollars compared to the second budget.
This proposal presents all the requested content in just 7 (intense) days of development.
These are some of the points of divergence between the views of NDC. As previously mentioned in the groups, we can merge two or more proposals, make adjustments (ideally after execution), decide on the unique continuation of one of them or resize documents, for example the Constitution being developed by the CWG being the internal constitution of the group, or the format of the legal framework that I made for the NDC being for sub-DAOs and etc.
I would suggest that the proposals under development be made more publicly accessible. Currently, recent decisions are being made by nodes such as the NF and “GWG” without input from other groups and the community as a whole. This is contrary to what has been presented to the community:
The purpose of the NDC is to further decentralize NEAR’s ecosystem governance and move decision-making on-chain in order to make our community more resilient, transparent, and fair. The sooner we do this, the likelier we are to succeed. - NDC_Comms
