Thank you, Matt, for this crucial feedback and for your support of the core ideas in our proposal. You’ve raised a fundamental question about governance integrity that is best addressed by returning to the first principles of our DAO’s constitution.
We absolutely agree that the integrity of the rules is paramount. The DAO v1.0 Rules and Process document lays out a clear legal framework. Let’s analyze it together. The “Scope of Governance” section defines two distinct types of governance actions:
The key here is the distinction between meta-rules (our Constitution) and operational rules (our Bylaws). The document explicitly defines meta-rule governance as those that govern the fundamental rights and powers of the voters.
Other rules within that same document, such as the “7 days + 30 likes” preliminary step, are not included in the definition of rights and powers. Therefore, they should be classified as operational procedures. They are the bylaws that govern how the DAO functions on a day-to-day basis, but they do not define the core power structure itself.
The v1.1 proposal is structured as a project contract, asking the DAO to approve a budget to procure a service that upgrades the DAO’s operational procedures (Bylaws). The new processes, such as the 30-day review period and the milestone voting system, are features of this upgraded operational service. They do not alter the constitutional meta-rules regarding who can vote, how their votes are weighted, or the conditions under which a proposal is formally adopted.
This is our good-faith interpretation of the existing rules. However, we believe this discussion on the distinction between constitutional and operational rules is a vital topic for the entire community to deliberate on. We are very keen to listen to the community’s wisdom on this matter and will respect the consensus that emerges from this discussion.
Thank you again for ensuring we have this rigorous, foundational conversation.
Matt，感谢您提供的宝贵反馈以及对我们提案核心理念的支持。您提出了一个关于治理完整性的根本问题，这个问题最好通过回归我们 DAO 章程的首要原则来解决。
我们完全同意规则的完整性至关重要。DAO v1.0 规则和流程文档 制定了清晰的法律框架。让我们一起来分析一下。“治理范围”部分定义了两种不同类型的治理行动：
这里的关键在于**元规则（我们的宪法）和运营规则（我们的章程）**之间的区别。该文件明确将元规则治理定义为管理投票者基本权利和权力的规则。
同一文件中的其他规则，例如“7 天 + 30 个赞”的预备步骤，并未包含在权利和权力的定义中。因此，它们应归类为运营程序。它们是管理 DAO 日常运作方式的章程，但并未定义核心权力结构本身。
v1.1 提案的结构为一份项目合同，要求 DAO 批准一项预算，以采购一项服务，升级 DAO 的运营程序（章程）。 30 天审核期和里程碑投票系统等新流程是此次升级运营服务的特色。它们不会改变关于投票资格、投票权重或提案正式通过条件的宪法元规则。
这是我们对现有规则的善意解读。然而，我们认为，关于宪法规则和运营规则之间区别的讨论是整个社区都需要认真探讨的重要议题。我们非常期待听取社区对此问题的宝贵意见，并将尊重讨论中达成的共识。
再次感谢您确保我们进行此次严谨且具有基础性的对话。