Proposal Policy

This policy establishes common standards for governance proposals across SuperBenefit's multiple governance bodies. These standards create shared expectations for proposal content while preserving each governance body's autonomy over its own decision-making processes.

Proposal Types

SuperBenefit adopts the DAOIP-4 proposal categories as content standards that any governance body may use when structuring proposals. These categories help proposers organize information in ways that reviewers across different governance bodies can understand and evaluate.

Treasury Proposals address resource allocation including grants, operational budgets, investments, and token distribution. These proposals should clearly articulate the resources requested, intended use, expected outcomes, and alignment with SuperBenefit's mission. Treasury proposals benefit from including specific metrics for evaluating success.

Protocol Proposals cover technical infrastructure changes including parameter modifications and major code upgrades. These proposals should detail the technical changes, rationale for modifications, potential risks, and implementation approach. Protocol proposals require clear documentation of impacts on existing systems.

Metagovernance Proposals encompass governance system modifications including governance changes, spin-outs, delegate governance structures, and potential mergers. These proposals should explain how proposed changes affect coordination between governance bodies, impacts on shared resources, and preservation of essential governance principles. Metagovernance proposals often require approval from multiple governance bodies when they affect shared infrastructure.

Any governance body may use any proposal type based on the content being proposed, not the body making the proposal. These categories provide common language for cross-body coordination rather than restricting which bodies can propose what changes.

Proposal Lifecycle

SuperBenefit follows the anticapture framework's four phases, creating accountability while enabling responsive decision-making:

Propose - The initiation phase where authorized parties submit proposals to relevant governance bodies. Proposals should clearly articulate the change being proposed, its rationale, and expected impacts. Each governance body maintains its own submission requirements and authorization criteria.

Decide - The deliberation and voting phase where governance bodies evaluate proposals according to their own processes. Decision-making authority and procedures are encoded in each body's governance smart contracts rather than prescribed by this policy.

Execute - The implementation phase where approved proposals are put into action. Execution authority varies based on the proposal type and the governance body's jurisdiction. Implementation accountability ensures decisions translate into actual changes.

Evaluate - The assessment phase where outcomes are reviewed against intended impacts. This creates learning loops that improve future decision-making and may trigger new proposals to address unforeseen consequences or opportunities.

Authority and Coordination

Each governance body maintains sovereignty over its own proposal processes while this policy provides common standards for content and lifecycle phases. When proposals affect shared resources or require coordination between bodies, the relevant governance bodies should communicate to ensure aligned decision-making.

Metagovernance proposals that affect shared infrastructure such as the ENS token, Top Hat administration, or community treasury require particular attention to cross-body coordination. SuperBenefit uses optimistic approval for multi-body decisions, where proposals proceed unless actively challenged by affected governance bodies.