Eugene directed me to it.
my reply: https://gov.optimism.io/t/looking-ahead-long-term-onchain-governance-architecture/9014/8?u=paulw
Proposal Permissioning: Balancing Innovation with Prudence
The industry standard for onchain governance involves minimal barriers to proposal submissions, relying on token-based thresholds to filter proposals.
Our current model, which requires delegate approvals and adheres to voting cycles, offers a more granular system that we believe is crucial for maintaining the quality and relevance of proposals. (Post on Forumā¦then rules in operating manual)
Permissionless is hard.
low barrier to entry can lead to an overwhelming number of proposals,
The main issue with using minimum token-based thresholds as a filtering mechanism is that it reduces participation relative
creates plutocratically-gated proposal rights, which is antithetical to the principles
This means that proposal thresholds are an active subject of contention in many other communities, and go against the principle of anti-plutocracy outlined in theĀ Working ConstitutionĀ of the Optimism Collective
One open design question is: are there benefits to implementing more stringent requirements for proposal submissions, such as requiring more delegate approvals for proposals allocating higher amounts of OP? This would be a divergence from the Operating Manual today, but could be appropriate given the transition to permissionlessness.
ā¢ Proposal Edits:
How can we accommodate changes to proposals during the review period without compromising the voting process?
Is it sufficient to allow arbitrary edits, but have any edits to reset delegate approvals?