🧠 Any interest in a DGov Score Framework?

Similar to Consensyss’ new DeFi Score, “a framework for assessing risk in permissionless lending platforms.”

Github Repository: https://github.com/consensys/defi-score.

Whitepaper: https://github.com/ConsenSys/defi-score/blob/master/whitepaper.md

Would anyone be interested in working with me on such a framework?

1 Like

Hi I am interested for collaboration


1 Like

I’ll support that! Was thinking about the OrgXP score, meaning how comfortable is to work in the network. E.g. onboarding, transparency, participative governance etc. So count me in =)

Hi guys! Thank you for your interest.

Here are some further musings I have on the DGov Score components based on some old work from Project Historia.

DGov Score possible components:

    1. voting percentage / total voting body;
    1. number of proposals passed;
    1. community size;
    1. number of whales;
    1. voting mechanics (e.g., amount of tokens held, 1-1 person to vote);
    1. membership types;
    1. how does someone become a member;
    1. ease of joining and leaving community;
    1. hard forks caused by [community disputes vs. software upgrades];
    1. number of forked projects;
    1. how do third parties contribute to the community and what do they get in return;
    1. decision-making protocols in use;
    1. transparency over proposals passed, failed and created;
    1. type of consensus and mining algorithm;
    1. are there enabling documents, e.g., manifesto

DGov Score based on 6 categories (the components can be categorized based on these 6 categories):

    1. membership;
    1. decision-making;
    1. governing bodies;
    1. governance metrics;
    1. third party interaction/ external affairs;
    1. significant governance events
1 Like

Additional formalization:

I am reformalizing the DGov Score into 8 categories, with components:

  • membership (internal actors);
  • decision-making protocols;
  • governing bodies;
  • governance metrics;
  • binding documents, rules & regulations;
  • external actors;
  • organizational structure (e.g., hierarchial); and
  • history.

Under membership, I was thinking of the following components:

  • Joining and Leaving Process
  • Rights granted
  • Duties and Obligations
  • Costs associated
  • Membership Classes

Let me know your thoughts on adding organizational structure to the categories and the membership components.

1 Like

I think you have the right idea for the components of membership, but I’m wondering if we should include something along the lines of Opportunities? I guess it might fall under rights granted, but I’m thinking of the opportunity to grow with the organization, the allocation of further responsibilities and perhaps even further voting power (something along the line of steem power, for instance). I might be off the mark here and it’s a bit abstract, but it was inspired by this interview with Nathan Schneider -> https://blog.autark.xyz/when-co-ops-meet-daos-interview-with-nathan-schneider/ (when he’s talking about leadership in institutions and coops). Does a member have the opportunity to take on more responsibility?

In saying that, I definitely believe that organizational structure needs to be included as it is something different than decision-making protocols (where the former is more technical and direct where the latter is more systematic). If there are different classes of membership (or perhaps governing bodies), for instance, how do the classes interact and can they be rated in terms of influence? Would this be an embedded hierarchy or something more fluid and susceptible to influence and change/are these structures permanent? I think it’s important to acknowledge these sorts of things.

1 Like

Good points @Jackothy. I will add Opportunities to the components.

Opportunities exemplary sub-components:

  • Allocation of greater responsibilities
  • Allocation of greater voting power
  • Potential for growth within the organization

I was also considering adding homogeneity of organizations and membership as a component. Any thoughts on this addition?

Lastly, thank you for mentioning Opportunities as a component. I like the idea and I think it gives greater nuance to the internal operations (and who controls the power) of organizations.

I wonder if homogeneity would be effectively covered within the sub-components of organizational structure, whatever they may be? As I saw it, organizational structure would be looking at things like classes of membership, hierarchy, etc. Might just sort homogeneity out ‘organically’.

1 Like

Also, Max mentioned something that I’m thinking might best be included, perhaps as its own category: Transparency. I think there would be several sub-categories within that as well, accessibility (ease of access to relevant documents), access to officials, ability to see how/if people are voting, are all documents/decisions deliberated on, etc.

1 Like