The DAO Genesis: Defining the DAppNodeDAO proposals

DAppNodeDAO is here!

Congratulations to all who want to take part of the future of decentralized infrastructure :slight_smile:

Most DAOs adopt some sort of standard to name and organize their proposals.

Some of them use the same naming as adopted by Bitcoin, the Bitcoin Improvement Proposals or BIPs, or the EIPs for Ethereum - like YIPs, SIPs and a whole lot of other projects.

Nevertheless, this is not the only option - and possibly not a good one for us, as we are not a “protocol”. I quite like Uniswap’s Temperature check -> Consensus check -> Governance Proposal process. Other projects dispense with naming altogether and give their proposals descriptive names, like 1hive.

After laying down some other existing examples, here are my thoughts for DAppNodeDAO:

DAppNodeDAO has two (2) main objectives:

  1. Work towards a future where decentralized hardware infrastructure is more prevalent, easier to access and run; partly but not limited to doing so through the DAppNode software, partnerships with relevant actors, offering better tools, resources and community.
  2. Act as the channeling agent for the voice of small Node Runners. Being an entity sitting at the table of the Infrastructure Providers representing those who run their nodes independently. The Indy validators DAO.

An example of actions that fall in the first category is the ValidatorDAO. These are actions and projects that empower Node Runners with more tools and means to better participate in the Networks they care about, and in turn strengthen the resilience of such networks by creating a more decentralized infrastructure base.

An example of the second category is our efforts to bring all clients to the DAppNode user through an API that can be used to connect any validator client to a generic UI. Actions like this bring the needs of the Indy validators to the discussion table, to counter the big Infrastructure providers like Exchanges and Staking Pools which have a very different set of needs.

Hence, I think at the very minimum we should have a distinction between these two types.

To kickstart the discussion without any set suggestions I’d say:

  • For proposals towards objective 1:

    • Something catchy like - but definitely not DIP. I feel like “Improvement” is too limiting of a word - we’re also all in for creating new products, new tools, new partnerships, and not just improving what we already have. We should find another name that encompassess all the possibilities that can be proposed.
  • For proposals towards objective 2:

    • Something that tries to capture the pulse of the Node Runners’ zeitgeist, their general, rough opinion, and structure it into the general opinion of what’s best for the Indy validator / small Node Runner.

So… what are your thoughts? Ready, set, go… your chance to craft the genesis of the DAppNodeDAO is now!

4 Likes

I vote for “DAppNode Advanced Management Network”

  • Something catchy like - but definitely not DIP. I feel like “Improvement” is too limiting of a word - we’re also all in for creating new products, new tools, new partnerships, and not just improving what we already have. We should find another name that encompassess all the possibilities that can be proposed.

Not really sure tbh. if improvement is limiting. IMHO all things you mentioned are improvements. And why should things be done if it’s not an improvement. Also in EIPs there is even a a informational track - also seen as improvement.
But I agree it should not be DIP as DIP is reserved for Devcon Imrpovement Proposals

Ah… something catchy… that encompasses a change. With a feeling of protection “Under the Dome” (stolen pic)

Dappnode
Offering of
Management
Enhancements

DOME Proposals :thinking:image

I’m not the technical person… I’m more fantasy.

“Dappnode just voted on a new DOME proposal” music :notes: to my ears.

1 Like

A combo of JHGroves and Swans: DAVE - DAppNode Advanced Enhancement. Then depending on the approval/disapproval can use a line from HAL from Space Odyssey