Replying in a personal capacity here, not on behalf of Aave Labs.
Admittedly, I am very worried about creating an additional governance layer that is ruled by social agreement because it seems high risk at the scale Aave operates.
My main concern is that it’s a system that is guaranteed to be inconsistent. It relies on the community to monitor, identify, and punish infractions, which means enforcement is not based on an objective standard (i.e. an onchain/Snapshot vote outcome), but on who is paying attention and who can generate the most outrage.
Some additional questions I have:
- Who is responsible for creating and publishing the clean tally?
- What is the process for deciding which votes to exclude? Is there an appeals process for someone whose vote is excluded?
- Since the onchain vote is what actually matters, how would the clean tally be used to influence governance outcomes after the fact? Does that remove finality from onchain votes?
I do agree that disclosing COIs upfront should be a part of the code of conduct, even in some cases where it may be obvious. But a social judgement system outside of voting is a slippery slope.