Proposal Temp Check
Last updated
Last updated
Our Github Proposal repository allows community members to share a proposed idea and gather early community responses. Based on community feedback and discussions, the proposers can refine their ideas and propose anew or have their proposal progress to a formal governance proposal once the author deems it ready and is confident enough in its possibility of ratification. This is commonly known as a 'temperature check' or 'temp check'.
To create a Proposal for temp check:
Head on over to the Proposal Repo located at:
Submit a Pull Request to add a new proposal based on the included Proposal Template. Share the link and proposal summary in the Optim Discord #odao-proposals governance channel:
Refine ideas from community discussions. Engage your networks, social media, and Optim DAO Members to garner support and discuss the proposal. Be responsive to questions and focus on our DAO's philosophy and mission. Do note that disagreements indicate healthy democratic functioning.
It is to be noted that there is no actual voting on whether these proposal temp checks should indeed be pushed to on-chain governance. The author of any given proposal can arbitrarily make that decision once they are confident they have gathered enough support to ratify the changes. In order to foster the core ideals of decentralized community governance, this process is avoiding any gatekeeping of approval through governance forum polls or any other centralized and exploitable mechanism, as is usually the norm, before being submitted for formal governance voting. Instead, the ODAO has opted to better align incentives in order to force organic community policing of this process by requiring a considerable amount of $O tokens to be staked as collateral to submit a proposal on chain, the amount of will be fully burned if the proposal does not pass ratification.
This ensures that the author of any given proposal is confident enough in its probability of approval to stake a substantial amount of value as collateral. Ideally, this required collateral should be large enough that it forces the author to seek sponsors from the community, further driving decentralized governance.
At the same time, all governance token holders are incentivized to vote down any proposals they disagree with as a failed proposal will result in its staked collateral tokens being burned, lowering the circulating supply of the $O token.
It is worth noting that despite there being no minimum time for discussion, if Key Opinion Leaders feel like there wasn't sufficient time given for discussion or that something is off, they may and should vote the proposal down.
If you need additional help on submitting a pull request, please refer to the official GitHub documentation available at the following link: