Request for Comment - Implement Leadership Council

For a DAO to peacefully decentralise control of its operations away from its founding team is no easy feat. I think it takes time and considered thought and both these things are apparent in this RFC.
Thank you to the folks who are stepping in to leadership roles, and to tex for putting the proposal together. Excited to see what we achieve in 2022!

Let me preface everything by thanking @tex for all the work he's done as a Stratego and for the thought that has gone into each nomination within this proposal. I can recognize each of these nominees not for who they are, but for the substantive list of things they've already done as leaders for the DAO. I am all in favor of the individuals mentioned continuing to lead the community. However, I have concerns about whether Olympus can be fully capture and censorship-resistant with this framework.

"Ratify a unified leadership team, composed of contributors across the Core and Stratego leadership groups. This unified leadership team is both accountable and has the authority to make strategic decisions on behalf of the DAO in service of the community. This team needs to have a tremendous amount of trust amongst themselves and a shared vision/working agreement on how they execute."

This framework works really well for limiting liability and closing execution gaps (which we desperately need), and for those reasons alone I cannot reasonably vote against it. However, I feel that this does not address the community's ability to autonomously nominate leadership or provide feedback, much like I feel that most of what we say and contribute ultimately can be censored, abridged, or amended at this point by whoever controls the communications platforms.
As unrealistic as it sounds, what do we do in a situation where the community has lost confidence or some bad actor has inflicted damage? What if despite legal protection, there is a counterparty risk where private keys are compromised? Does the DAO provide a platform where the community can voice their concerns and vote transparently in a way that is append-only?
Also, in addition to this leadership structure, I believe we should pursue the creation of an analogue to the Curve "Emergency DAO" as another form of capture resistance. If the ultimate goal is to have delegated voting on-chain (and other signaling uses for gOHM), then it would be a sign of good faith to the ecosystem that we bring recognizable, reputable leaders (like our friends in Frax and the Tribe) into the fold for circumstances where Olympus is governance-attacked.

I'd also preface my comments here with a thanks to @tex for the thinking and for pushing through with many of the discussion points around governance and leadership that have come up in different discussions over the past few months.

That said, agreed with @EdgeCaser that two very distinct questions are being rolled into one poll here. The concept of a Leadership council (as per Synthetix' Spartan Council) is one I agree with and one that I definitely support - as I've said in other discussions there is a definite growth curve towards full decentralisation and on-chain governance and it is good that we are responding to that with a leadership environment that acknowledges there are a fair few steps to get there and builds a structure right for now.

Who is on that Council should be an entirely separate discussion and should not be rolled into the Council poll. Moving to the Council model is a big step and should be one discussed in detail and agreed across the community.

Having said that, it is worth acknowledging here that my expectation in splitting this would be that there would be very low participation across both polls, as there is currently very low participation across a large percentage of the polls.

Leading to some thoughts on the structure of the Council and the OKR's.

As discussed above in @m_j_r 's comments, the suggested framework sounds like it will work really well in limiting liability and closing execution gaps (which I agree seems to be needed), it also looks to heavily focus on Operational requirements and needs and looking to close up gaps in these - which is positive.

That said, while I personally believe that Ohm is becoming more and more of a B2B play and as such retail marketing is ultimately less important (Proteus, Olympus Pro, Artemis etc are all B2B products ultimately and should be marketed as such), there is still a need for increased clarity, transparency and communication to retail to assist with achieving DAO-wide 3. The overall stats for participation reflect a generally falling level of interest in participating in Ohm (even among wallet holders) - I'd love to see more obvious linkages in the above to communications and marketing (not whales or market makers but to retail and smaller holders).

Excellent delivery solves half the problem, without seeing the duck legs under the water (and any associated challenges) I can say as an investor that I can never fault on the level of delivery - I can totally understand the continued desire to ensure that delivery is efficient and effective and that contributors are effectively compensated for that delivery. Highly effective comms and marketing is the other side of the problem and the side that I still feel is never addressed as effectively.

Summary on all of that, I'll vote yes on this because it seems like a good way forward, with concerns around the way that this is put forward and associated concerns around some of the focus areas and the continued feeling that participation as a concern isn't effectively addressed.

Love youse all Ohmies.

+1. Very well written and explained @tex

Also agree probably break into two polls.

1. Creation of council and representation (this would be akin to a constitution). e.g. 25% core representation, 25% DAO, 25% Early Holders, 25% Industry stalwarts + 1 permanent seat for Zeus as tie breaker.

2. Poll for council members similar to CRV poll. Nominate names and put them all on a snapshot for people to vote on every 6 months. e.g. like you vote for emissions on a curve snapshot.

This would be a game changer and essentially democratise and decentralise Olympus DAO much more.

100% in favor, this is much needed.

Can anyone expand on multi-sig and the time frame here? Or the time frame for all of this for that matter.

Removal of treasury multi-sig was something that was stated would happen with V2. In my personal experience, I found treasury management to be the biggest pain point with the current system. Many are aware of the continual funding delays to Olympus supported projects such as Olympus Grants. This is not good, especially when trying to build the econohmy as it undermines the confidence of participants in these programs.

Hopefully this helps close gaps and tighten up communication and efficiency within the DAO.

I think it's time we have strategic oversight as Olympus progresses into it's next phase of existence, I'm behind this 100%.

Having an elected team that helps Olympus decentralize more is definitely a must. I do worry that some people may want to elect different council members though. There should be 2 votes:

Vote 1: Approval of Council framework

Vote 2: Approval of Council members (This can be done in a way where a list of multiple options are listed for every DAO contributor of a certain status, then community members vote, and the top 6 get the positions)

Sidenote: I do believe that the choices that were made in this proposal are good where they are, but this is a DAO, and that means as much control in the hands of the community as possible.

I am relatively new here and not completely educated on everything that’s going on, but felt moved to comment. I see some people wanting to vote on the Council members from a list of multiple. I worry that if other nominees are brought in, in addition to those mentioned here, we may get Council members who are not as qualified as those mentioned. I feel like those who have been leaders since inception (or near that), and have proven themselves capable through their accomplishments (as outlined here), should be on the council. Putting multiple candidates on the list, risks people like me, who haven’t been immersed and following closely, voting for people who will not achieve optimal results. I say go with those listed here, but retain the option to replace them later through community vote if the need arises. All that seems to be well outlined in this proposal so I’m supporting it.

Hey all, happy to see the proposal and discussions on it.

Agree, 2 separate proposals may be prudent. I will echo Tex's points that such a DAO leadership team is very much needed, and this is a step in the right direction. I am really thankful that the Strategos and Core team elected me for the position, but also would support another proposal for electing council members if that is what the ohmies want. With that said, having worked closely with all of the other elected members, I am more than confident in their judgement, character, and their dedication to the success of this project. I would be happy to vouch for all of them in a re-election, even with myself excluded. I would also say there are plenty of other great individuals in the DAO who could serve this role. We really are spoiled with the awesome people we have in this organization.

Addressing some concerns brought up, particularly from @m_j_r.

what do we do in a situation where the community has lost confidence or some bad actor has inflicted damage?

This is one of our primary goals for the future of Olympus. To decentralize the protocol and have a system minimally governed, and for situations where governance is needed, is purely the will of the community. In fact, bringing about this change in structure is the primary job of this proposed leadership structure. The members serve temporary positions, which should be re-elected (however often the community feels comfortable). I think this should be sufficient for this proposal, as I don't think the minute details of this kind of re-election need to be hashed out right now. This will be the job for the community and the DAO moving forward. I think at this point, there is dysfunction that needs to be addressed before we can tackle details like this. There has to be a trade-off where we trust the elected members to execute and bring about this kind of change, held accountable by the community.

Does the DAO provide a platform where the community can voice their concerns and vote transparently in a way that is append-only?

This will hopefully be alleviated a bit with on-chain governance. This is a huge focus for this year, and we in the DAO are exploring ways to reduce the risks of this kind of misuse of power. Having this large of a treasury is a huge honeypot for malicious actors. Zeus has some cool proposals coming up to address some of these concerns. Bringing about this system is one of my main goals.

I believe we should pursue the creation of an analogue to the Curve "Emergency DAO" as another form of capture resistance.

100% agreed. I love the nope DAOs forming around defi and I foresee us going this route as well. But I think this is past the scope of this proposal.

While I love this idea, and agree in a streamlined leadership structure to fix up dao-related issues of timezones etc.
I would expect and hope that a council should include or have a top down support of the importance of 'Product Design' of Olympus products and the expected finish of design quality in a site with financial instruments and investment.

So, my thinking is, what makes up a successful company? From the Council list, who is best and qualified to look after the strategic decisions on User Experience: Customer Experience, Service Design, UX Copywriting and User Interface, if design cannot be at the upmost seat or represented, I would like to see a Council roadmap on the principles that holds 'product design' and quality of design in high regard and the principles and process be honoured by all.
- Ethics
- Process
- Quality

I am particularly not that fond of the current allocation structure weighting of design-driven value; I have polled on twitter seeing 64% of people see 'UXUI Design' as the single most important factor in investing on a DeFi site after they have done their research, this polled over all other areas of smart contract security etc. This allocation structure based on algo/VR/big data-driven tech companies in Silicon valley; design is not so forefront right now in those organisations as they grab into these emerging markets, yet I believe DeFi is and heavily reliant on experienced quality UXUI designers with industry knowledge, not easy to find.

There are cultures in organisation structures that are weighted more to Product or Development; yet we should also shift this towards design over time.

Why was Apple successful?
They are a CX based company who innovates for users using design driven features and design-thinking processes.
I would hope that in this council we can improve the standing of design within the Dao.

Thanks @tex for coming up with this proposal. Imo it makes a lot of sense to move in this direction.

As a DAO we want to move to a democratic system structure and the idea of a leadership council will help us reinforce hierarchy within the DAO.

Following these lines (and as other people commented in previous posts) I believe that this OIP should solely focus on the ideation of a 6 people council + Zeus as a permanent 7th member.

On top of that, aiming for full fairness and in pursuit of the best democratic standards, I would opt for an independent council member nomination + snapshot vote. Ideally, all ohmies could present themselves as council candidates, and the community will be smart enough to recognize leaders such as the ones that @tex proposed in this OIP.

So I would amend this OIP so that it lays out the following roadmap:

1. Vote on the idea of a 6 member council + Zeus.
2. Define the role that each council member would pursue (this would ensure a diverse council).
3. If the OIP passes, people can start presenting themselves as candidates for 1 of the 6 council spots. Candidates should apply for 1 specific spot + list the reasons why ohmies should vote for them.
4. Create 6 different snapshots (one for each council member role), where all the candidates who applied for that role (and properly filled the requirements) are listed.
5. Vote
6. Council election.

Very well written and explained @tex.

I think that a council model (which is really about delegation) is a big step forward. Direct governance through unfiltered on chain votes brings a lot of problems in terms of voter engagement, execution speed and unclear governance model.

I'm also strongly in favor of implementing it in a two step process (vote 1 framework, vote 2 members). The initial choice of candidates might affect the outcome of implementing the council model and vice versa. A rolling council tenure where 1/3 is replaced at a time was a good suggestion.

However, from what I read in the description is that the council is another operational group in the DAO that takes on a set of operational tasks that in traditional organisations are handled by the CEO.

I have two reservations:
1. I fear this is another reorg that is done without having a clear overall picture of the entire organisation. How does the council structure relate to current organisational structures in the DAO? What role will strategos have, the DAO core group, working groups etc?

2. In the "Motivation" and "Proposal" section the council is described as taking a high level responsibility - "new leadership team is both accountable and has the authority to make strategic decisions on behalf of the DAO…". However, what is listed in the "Deliverables" section are operational tasks.

If the council effectively replace the CEO (by the description of the deliverables), token holders represent both shareholders and the board. I think that the most important task of the highest executive role in an org is missing from the Deliverables and the role assignment. That is strategy.

Imho the number one task of the council should be to produce and present a coherent strategy for the DAO (that is approved by the community), then the rest will follow. A strategy is not a vision, mission and OKR's. Good strategies identify the core challenge the organization is facing and is actionable with insights on the strategic and tactical levels.

I see two issues here:

First off, someone's background should be in consideration for these types of roles. I would like to see tradfi backgrounds represented in policy and treasury decisions.

Second, someone from marketing should sit on this council so that ideas can be smoothed from a PR standpoint.

Other than those two callouts, I have voted FOR the measure and welcome the council!

seijaku My only worry with a separate proposal for voting is it'll turn into a popularity contest of sorts. We're not pitching to VCs here. I'm open to it but my worry is it'll turn into a shitstorm.