Hi everyone,
Reading through this entire thread, I agree that this wasn’t a protocol change and that product or UI decisions shouldn’t automatically require governance. At the same time, I understand why this was not okay. There was an existing treasury inflow (even if optional or surplus), and that informed how people reasoned about treasury economics over time.
In my 5 years of Governance experience working across ecosystems like Polygon, Filecoin, Avail, Mina (with Aragon), Liberdus, and others… when this kind of tension shows up, we usually handle it by introducing a meta-governance layer. Not more voting, and not governance over every product decision but a simple layer that explicitly lists the underlying parameters that govern shared assets like a treasury or a protocol, and defines what happens when those parameters change.
Practically, this means mapping things like:
– treasury inflows (even optional ones)
– treasury outflows
– admin / executor roles
– multisigs and security councils
– timelocks and safeguards
– other parameters that materially affect control or economics
The distinction is important:
– A new swap integration that doesn’t affect any existing treasury parameter wouldn’t need any process.
– A change that removes or alters an existing treasury inflow does affect a treasury parameter, even if it doesn’t touch protocol code so it should be surfaced to those affected by it (i.e. the DAO).
This doesn’t mean everything needs a vote. In many cases, the process is just disclosure, scoping, and an exit window. So if the community disagrees with a meta-governance change, it has time and clarity to react, including the option to exit, rather than discovering the impact after the fact.
What this creates is a clear framework for everyone: teams know what they can execute on autonomously, the DAO knows when it should expect visibility, and these questions don’t have to be re-litigated every time something changes. What does the DAO and the community think about this idea? Would it help?