For sure it will. Before submitting it for voting, the whole concept and model should be well thought and developed. Implementation will follow the voting.
1 Like
I agree. Like it
Agree with the proposal. Looking forward to the inaugural elections!
Great proposal! Iâll happy to join elections
4 Likes
How do you track token holder? Donât you think there are people who actually could be more contributive than token holders?
I agree with you
When and from where can participants vote for governance on proposals?
The reality right now is that the Aurora ecosystem has two tokens with zero use cases at the time of writing. AURORA and VOTE. At least you get the VOTE token for free(assuming that you bought and staked AURORA). Unfortunately, the initial excitement about the ecosystem was quickly killed for me, once I went deeper into understanding the projectâs token(AURORA) and its place in the ecosystem(basically no placeâŚ). This proposal wonât matter when the reality is that AURORA is losing holders every single day. So less holders, less staking, less hands holding the votes, less decentralisation. You need to attract people into buying the core token(AURORA) first in order to achieve everything else but it seems there are no plans for this. 
I hate to say it but I agree. Without this decentralisation plan there is zero utility for the aurora token. Iâm still holding my heavy bags but the lack of updates from the team is causing me to lose confidence
1 Like
-
Was going to suggest precisely the same thing, range of 2-years, with 1-year cliff, seems to be the most reasonable for the health of the ecosystem
-
Compensation should a combination of both AURORA and stablecoins, 75%:25%
-
Not to do with your removal balance-check, but the âearly resignationâ option is unnerving. I think the new, or âreplacementâ board member should be selected at the time the member announces resignation and actually resigns (if I understood it correctly they will give one-month advance notice), this way we will have confidence, there will be no gaps, and we can plan future endeavors without delay; The ability to remove council members is necessary and should, in my opinion, be a simple majority vote with (> 50%), but unsure how to assign quorum for such a matter. Quorum in general depends on a myriad of factors routing from the âwhyâ we are here; Are we investors, speculators, dreamers, or just degens. I think the threshold for quorum for most items should be set at a low standard (25% of voting power) but with serious matters such as council removal (> 50%). Just my two sats.
-
Defining quorumâs parameters will be difficult but I have been involved actively with a few DAOâs myself. In the serious situations where quorum is not reached for council-member removal or other important matters, I suggest that the remaining council members votes bear more weight in the decision as they are the ones who will ultimately deal with the subsequent incumbent
Absolutely agree