Thanks for the reply.
Could you elaborate a bit on your comment about leaving admin keys independent? Not sure I follow but I’m interpreting it as after the formation of the DAO, no one can edit the contract underlying it. Which, I tend to agree is the best course of action from a decentralization standpoint. If those participating in the DAO decide they want to upgrade to a new contract later, they could always vote to move funds into the new DAO and begin anew without the risk of administration keys.
I’m also maybe misunderstanding what you’re talking about in regards to mint functionality. With hicetnunc the goal is to work together to form a DAO that can issue tokens? Then these tokens are used for whatever the DAO wants them to be used for? In the example I’ve described, I imagine that any transferrable token that the DAO would emit would represent a stake-weighted proportional voting right for disbursement of the funds. This would allow new participants to govern the DAO, but could also end up being a way for the DAO to dissolve and disperse held funds. A cool thought experiment.
Cool to know that you intend for the time-lock to be variable. The way I think about it is that those participating in the DAO would rather the DAO be well capitalized otherwise what’s the point? So an extended time-lock would result in more baking inflation reward XTZ donation to the DAO’s holdings.
So long as there’s a module in place to change delegations via vote, I don’t think that it particularly matters if a/ which Baker were the one to instantiate the DAO, but it would probably help them bolster their bakery’s delegated XTZ numbers. They’d probably make it so delegation can’t be changed, which is within their right as DAO launcher. Could be cool if it happened and then there was also a community started DAO that could switch baker and then they compete.
Kolibri isn’t out yet but the developers said it will be out soon. It will function similar to Maker’s Single Collateral Dai except that it has the ability to retain delegation rights built in. Its a cool project.
Reason why I mentioned it is because it could give a lot of financial power to the DAO provided it has significant enough collateral held within. They wouldn’t need to send off their XTZ, only kUSD (the Kolibri stablecoin), and with baking rewards constantly coming in they can keep their vault within a safe range of liquidation. Plus if XTZ were to go up in value, the DAO could sell off XTZ for kUSD directly and close out its loan position.
To summarize, the aspects of the hicetnunc protocol that I think will see a lot of use, are its ability to do time-lock based inflation donations to the DAO, and its ability to distribute a token to DAO participants. In regards the token it should somehow come with governance capabilities regarding the DAO’s XTZ treasury distribution, and a way to automatically distribute these funds in a transaction based on passing a threshold during an in protocol vote (examples of a vote = send 1,000 XTZ to tz12345… if greater than 50% of holders agree, or execute transaction to create kUSD vault under DAO’s ownership).
Features like this would allow it to be super flexible in terms of use case whether its philanthropic, capitalistic, whatever.
