1.2 KiB
1.2 KiB
| type | source_type | title | author | url | date | domain | format | status | proposed_by | contribution_type | tags | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| source | x-tweet | @01resolved — shared via Telegram by @m3taversal | @01resolved | https://x.com/01resolved/status/2037550467316847015?s=46 | 2026-03-27 | internet-finance | social-media | unprocessed | @m3taversal | source-submission |
|
@01resolved — Tweet/Thread
Shared by @m3taversal via Telegram. Source URL: https://x.com/01resolved/status/2037550467316847015?s=46
Content
This is exactly the type of early stage governance risk we wrote about recently. Our view is that sensitive treasury proposals should be subject to project specific guardrails and post-ICO timing windows, rather than becoming immediately eligible.
The @P2Pdotme ICO currently live on @MetaDAOProject appears to already reflect some of this thinking. In the ICO details, community governance proposals are only enabled 7-9 months after funding.
Our “Permissionless Proposals for MetaDAO Decision Markets” introduces a framework for proposal classes, timing windows, and other guardrails here: https://t.co/WQAbjKff1A