This is the novel approach we propose for foreign tokens airdropped to any treasury. Considering the existence of large decentralized governing bodies with effective measures to manage funds, projects and track results like Polkadot’s Opengov, Cardano Governace, Internet Computer governance and other large EVM DAOs and the precedent of token airdrops to important figures as well as to treasuries, we propose that tokens that have been airdropped to any on-chain treasury can have two different courses of action.
If the party responsible for the airdrop does not pronounce its intentions for the airdrop within a reasonable time, the treasury should be entitled to either liquidate the assets at their disposal or donate them to companies, projects or causes that the decentralized governance deems best. Donating to core development or related alternatives should be the preferred cause. Other tangentially related activities could also be an option. The decision to whether donate to a common good cause, charity or any other activity vs convert it directly to other tokens within the treasury is subject to DAO vote.
If the party responsible for the airdrop declares explicitly the intentions and instructions for the use of this airdrop, as long as it’s morally acceptable and legal, then the decentralized governance bodies can provide this service (immoral or illegal requests will default to the first liquidation or donation approach). We believe that the better approach for this is framing it as Governance-as-a-Service (GaaS). So the party that airdropped the tokens to the treasury should also provide a financial incentive or bribe to all voters willing to engage in the decisions on the referenda that require the measures to manage funds, projects and track results on behalf of the interests of these airdropped tokens.
This will constitute a novel product for large decentralized governance bodies who will become attractive management tools for other projects who might be starting-up or lacking the community yet to create a strong community of voters and governance. As we all are aware, large and effective on-chain governance bodies, just like validator security, is hard to replicate in isolation or to start their own. So this is a novel product that can be sold to other tokens that either lack the governance capabilities, lacks the will to make governance decisions or manage their treasuries or simply are still young communities looking to grow their impact.
How does this look in practice? A votedrop.
The airdropping party provides the tokens to the treasury as well as the tools to execute the airdrop for all future voters that will take part in the voting process and diligence required to investigate and track the proposals. The most straightforward way to select the recipients of the incentive is to all participants who voted in any way, although other alternative approaches can be tried, either as a bribedrop or other more intricate selection mechanisms.
After the airdropping party has declared the intention, provided the tools to execute the votedrop and the amounts required to incentivize voters, the decision should be put to vote first. This should be done in order for the community to accept the task as well as the incentives. A loophole for this to present a tiny amount to be airdropped to potential voters, so for that reason, acceptance of the terms should be done. Alternatively, the two default proposals: liquidation and donation could be presented at the beginning and if both are rejected then governance implicitly accepts the task of managing the new funds.
Published by: Saxemberg on Sept. 25, 2024