Conversation
…eight delegation Drafts the composition layer for private DAO governance: lifecycle, per-proposal deliberation, private voting with member weight, and delegation. Execution, voting and deliberation sit behind adapters so the prize is buildable ahead of RFP-005 and a private-voting spec. Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
|
weboko
marked this pull request as ready for review
September 2, 2026 06:17
mart1n-xyz
reviewed
Sep 2, 2026
mart1n-xyz
reviewed
Sep 2, 2026
mart1n-xyz
reviewed
Sep 2, 2026
weboko
changed the title
fryorcraken
reviewed
Sep 4, 2026
|
|
||
| A DAO is not a voting contract. It is a loop: someone raises a proposal, members argue about it, members vote on it, and — if it passes — something executes against a treasury or an admin authority. Logos has, or is building, a component for each of those steps. What does not exist is the thing that makes them one organisation. | ||
|
|
||
| This prize funds a **Private DAO app for Logos Basecamp**: the proposal lifecycle that carries a decision from draft to execution, the deliberation surface bound to each proposal, private voting with member-held weight, and voting-weight delegation — with a privacy boundary that holds *across* those steps rather than inside each one. |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should also mention nice integration with treasury, and potentially token governance creation GUI?
…o lp-0025-private-dao
fryorcraken
reviewed
Sep 24, 2026
weboko
force-pushed
the
lp-0025-private-dao
branch
from
October 1, 2026 22:20
688b97b to
2b56bae
Compare
fryorcraken
approved these changes
Oct 6, 2026
|
|
||
| The measured consequences of that design: | ||
|
|
||
| - **Turnout is low and power is concentrated.** Against all token holders, turnout runs 1–2%; a cross-DAO average of 6.3% has been reported. One review found the single largest actor holding 35% of voting power and the top three holding 63% between them. |
Collaborator
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is that a consequence of the public design? any sources?
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
LP-0019 from logos-co/ecosystem#190. $3,000, Large.
Scope. The composition layer — proposal lifecycle, per-proposal deliberation, private voting with member-held weight, delegation. Execution, voting and deliberation each sit behind an adapter with a reference backend, so the prize is buildable before RFP-005 (rfp#113) and a private-voting spec land. RFP-005 becomes the primary execution backend once it exists.
Central requirement. Delegation and ballot privacy are in structural tension — delegates need to be accountable, members need to not be coercible. A submission has to take a defended position on it, enforce direct-vs-delegated double-count prevention in the verifier rather than the client, and ship a cross-layer privacy accounting document. Per-component privacy claims that don't compose are the realistic failure mode for a composing app.
Adoption. Typed as an end-user app: B2 + B3, C1, E2, with C2/C3/C4 discretionary. Two additions, because account-history checks can't carry anti-Sybil weight when members are unlinkable by design:
Logos Circle:left N/A, though the Adoption section requires two Circles to adopt it — worth attaching one.🤖 Generated with Claude Code