zeugh.eth:
We have no intention of rewriting code that already exists and is functional and audited, but don’t want to limit the DAO to choose only from what is already done, as we are available and capable of going beyond that ourselves. If the discussions here don’t significantly deviate some features from already existing options, it’s most likely we will use those pieces.
zeugh.eth:
Yes, the intention is to bring something that we will code ourselves, specially to facilitate future upgrades and expansions. Things like a reputational voting system would need the proposed modularity to be able to plug-in without major disruption of the structure we already have.
Aragon OSx is a great piece of governance software, unfortunately not easily compatible with our current structure, needing a change in the timelock would be more disruptive and high risk than what we are proposing.
Once we decided modularity was the best path we looked into the system, but didn’t find it a better fit than creating something that is compatible with other pieces we already have straight out of the box.
These two statements seem at odds with one another. Can you clarify what you’re intending to write yourselves, and what existing code you’re intending to reuse?
1 Like