As always, a thoughtful reply.
There’s not necessarily a blueprint for how a DAO should work, but mechanism design is more broadly the area I’ve been reading up on. Organizational behavior is another fascinating lens to look at this through. Mechanism design is full of oddball edge cases that leave me apprehensive about too aggressive an approach in radical experimentation. That said, I appreciate the go-getter mindset.
I’ll highlight one additional area of your response: DELEGATES are likely to be good-faith actors. They only derive their power through the consent of the governed, as it were.
Whales, particularly exchanges and the like, are not such good actors. They are self-interested rather than organizationally interested.
I think stagnation is less of an existential threat to Uniswap than you do; while in a broad sense, staying nimble and uncomfortable can be organizationally healthy, I’d emphasize that we need to do so safely. Particularly with respect to governance, we don’t have a particularly robust risk analysis framework yet to know what changes are going to break this and, in all likelihood, do so irreversibly.
In this vein, I appreciated @tarun’s in-depth analysis of threat vectors to governance. (Proposal: Reduce amount of UNIs required to submit governance proposal) for those who missed it earlier).
Some of our problems can be solved with engineering solutions; others, as you suggest, will go through iterative development through rapid experimentation.
As an aside, I always look forward to reading your posts, @rabbidfly. Like yourself, I’m not wedded to any ideas in particular, and it’s precisely this sort of critical discourse that helps us all figure this out.