Given recent discussions in the DAO and the renewed attention around appearances of conflict of interest (COI), this might be a good moment to revisit these examples and talk through instances of presumed or intended COI.
I suggest we mediate this by discussing the illustrative examples that 5pence.eth alluded to earlier.
His position reflects an ethos that’s already been articulated:
“Unless a conflict is so pervasive that it would prevent a candidate from doing their job at all, conflicts should be dealt with by proactively declaring them, and recusal from votes that involve the conflict. Attempting to exclude anyone who may have any kind of conflict once again sets up a perverse incentive where we discourage our most ardent supporters from participating in the DAO.”
We cannot expect stewards to be totally free of conflicts on all possible decisions they may be asked to make, as engagement in the DAO naturally implies some degree of alignment or overlap.
Rather, it’s an opportunity for leaders to set an example through disclosure and managed recusal. Even when there’s no actual conflict, maintaining trust depends on visibly upholding transparency.