Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
188 lines (127 loc) · 6.34 KB

rubric.md

File metadata and controls

188 lines (127 loc) · 6.34 KB
Raw

Template Delegation Rubric

Table

 

[DELEGATE NAME]

 

Score

Total __/18
Commitment __/2
Expertise __/2
History __/2
Absence of Conflict __/2
Alignment __/2
Arm’s Length __/2
Decentralization __/2
Diversity __/2
Stewardship __/2

 

Background Information:

[Here, we provide a brief summary of the proposed delegate, including their background, location, expertise, and historical participation in this or other communities.]

Date of Assessment: [DATE]

What is their process for tracking developments on the Protocol?:

  • [Here, we identify what their process is for staying on top of new developments in the ecosystem (including up and coming proposals)]

What is their decision making process?

  • [Here, we outline their internal decision making process]

What is their vote execution process?

  • [Here, we outline their technical process for executing votes, introducing proposals, etc.]

What is their approach towards community engagement?

  • [Here we outline their approach towards engaging with the community, including discussing their thought process on proposals and votes on Twitter, Discord, governance forums, community calls etc.]

Detailed Assessment:

  1. Protocol Commitment

    • What is their level of commitment to Protocol and its governance?

      • (+2 pts) This directly relates to their core work or responsibilities.

      • (+1 pts) This is a demonstrated personal interest or is parallel to their core work.

      • (+0 pts) This is a new potential interest or is potentially related to their core work.

  2. DeFi and Crypto Expertise

    • What is their background and how does it qualify them to participate?

      • (+2 pts) Their background is directly related to crypto governance, smart contract development, code auditing, financial risk modeling, DeFi protocols, or similar; they are ideally qualified.

      • (+1 pts) Their background is indirectly related to the above; they have a background in software, cryptography, finance; they are generally qualified.

      • (+0 pts) Their background is unrelated to the core goals and challenges of the protocol.

  3. History re: DeFi engagement

    • What is their history in terms of community engagement, and how are they generally perceived publicly?

      • (+2 pts) They have a strong history of transparent and articulate community engagement, and are generally perceived to be informed, extremely competent, and motivated by more than their own self-interest; they embody the ethos of stewardship.

      • (+1 pts) They may have a history of positive community engagement, and may be perceived to be informed, competent, and selflessly motivated — but this reputation is new, developing, or not entirely robust.

      • (+0 pts) They have no distinct history of community engagement and only have potential to develop a strong reputation.

  4. Absence of Conflict with Protocol’s Success

    • Do they have any outstanding conflicts of interest with Protocol, or any ways they would benefit from Protocol’s failure?

      • (+2 pts) They have no existing conflicts with Protocol, and would not benefit in any way from Protocol’s failure.

      • (+1 pts) They have no outright conflicts with Protocol, but may benefit in some unusual circumstances if Protocol fails.

      • (+0 pts) They have an outright conflict with Protocol, or may benefit if Protocol fails.

  5. Positive Alignment with Protocol’s Success

    • Are they positively aligned with the long-term interests of Protocol?

      • (+2 pts) Their current business model or goals mean they will benefit directly if Protocol succeeds and grows; their success is tied in some way with Protocol’s success.

      • (+1 pts) They will indirectly benefit if Protocol succeeds and grows, but Protocol’s success is not necessary or extremely helpful to them.

      • (+0 pts) Protocol’s success does not meaningfully impact them or their business.

  6. “Arms” Length or Independence from a16z

    • Are they at “arm’s length” from us to ensure independent voting post delegation?

      • (+2 pts) They are at “arm’s length”, meaning no formal relationship with a16z and a16z has no influence on their decision making.

      • (+0 pts) They could not reasonably be considered at “arm’s length”.

  7. Impact on Decentralization

    • Will delegating to this party help further the decentralization of governance power in the network?

      • (+2 pts)  They hold 1% or less of the network’s fully diluted voting power  

      • (+1 pts)  They hold between 1% and 5% of the network’s fully diluted voting power  

      • (+0 pts)  They hold more than 5% of the network’s fully diluted voting power

  8. Diversity

    • Will delegating to this party increase the overall diversity of perspectives within governance to avoid groupthink?

      • (+2 pts) They represent a group, profile or perspective that is currently underrepresented in governance. 

      • (+0 pts) They represent a group, profile or perspective that is already widely represented in governance.

  9. Stewardship

    • Do they embody the ethos of stewardship and believe in Protocol’s underlying mission?

      • (+2 pts) They are likely to act as good stewards of Protocol and will work to further its underlying mission over the long term. 

      • (+0 pts) It is not clear that they will act as good stewards, or have a history of engaging in behavior that suggests otherwise.