If that’s the case, let’s reframe the current proposal as “Policies for DAO Actors” (rather than “Principles”) or something along those lines.
With this reframing in mind, there are still aspects that cannot reasonably be expected of all DAO actors—and that’s completely fine:
-
Representation: DAO actors should not be expected to represent every single entity in the DAO equally. Delegates owe their representation to the tokenholders who delegate to them, not to the entire DAO community.
-
On-chain Focus: On-chain activity is foundational to a DAO; any critical actions must originate and be validated on-chain. Beyond that initial involvement, off-chain transparency should hold equal value as on-chain transparency—it’s simply another method of communication. We should avoid signaling for unnecessary bureaucracy.
-
Decentralization: I would rework this term to focus on anti-cartelarization. Decentralization is already a foundational assumption in the DAO world.
-
Security: We cannot punish potential DAO actors for their participation due to a lack of understanding of third-order effects, as long as their actions are conducted in good faith and with due care.