All for this, but are we planning on specifically excluding treasurers to avoid excessive centralisation of power?
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
All for this, but are we planning on specifically excluding treasurers to avoid excessive centralisation of power?
it's a valid question, and I think people might be able to present valid arguments either way.
Argument for allowing treasurers on the board is that they are highly aligned to the foundation's purpose. However, like you say, there is risk of abuse of power and a potential to lack a diversity of opinion.
On the matter of centralization of power:
there remains to be seen how much power either role will have to act. Treasurers are stated to only act in accordance with whitepaper or DAO-authorized transactions.
If the board members are known and KYC'd, there might be some future scenario where a board member is pressured (either legally, or not) to pursue some action without authorization from the DAO. If none of the board members have wallet keys, it seems that might reduce that particular sort of risk.
Invalid concerns.
to you, sure, but clearly not to others, so more clarity is clearly needed 😀
all valid concerns
Neither board nor the treasurer are positions of power. They are positions of liability. Rather big ones.
Well, it's an interesting discussion, but I'm pretty sure there is no liability without power?
Legally speaking, a Director's power is clear - they have full authority to bind the organization. (if their signature didn't matter, we wouldn't need them...)
Meanwhile, a Treasurer has the power and liability associated with holding wallet keys for a warchest.
No doubt the DAO will work to create operating principles to attempt to limit excessive power for both positions, and that is good.
We've already got a good start, with the multi-sig process for Treasurers.
But the unfortunate reality is that any operating risk mitigations become less effective when power is centralized, or where collusion is possible.
Hopefully we can do that effectively. It's an important discussion, and that's why we have a legal fund now :)
For the n’th time; there is NO power associated with this position
Well, the natural conclusion of your statement is "any director would do because there is no power." I respect your conviction but suggest you reflect on it further.
You certainly have more at stake here than many of us and will be a major determinant of the final appointees. I'll leave you to it. VONAK good sir.
I have reflected on it enough, as this is my idea.
I suggest you reflect on it.
Also a life advice: I know it is hard to do it in crypto space, where it seems everyone is out to get you; but,
please assume positive intent from others.
You will see that will improve your quality of life and help you become more successful in whatever that you do.
Nevertheless, the point should be discussed, and here we are doing it!