Hey everyone,
I would like to suggest a discussion around the idea of meta-proposals in Unit Zero governance. By meta-proposals I mean proposals that do not deal with budgets, partnerships, or ecosystem changes directly, but instead with the rules of governance itself. For example, adjusting quorum requirements, changing the duration of voting periods, or modifying delegation limits.
The benefit of such a system is flexibility. Governance models that are fixed at launch can quickly become outdated or prove impractical once real usage begins. Allowing the community to evolve the rules of governance could help ensure the system stays relevant, fair, and effective over time. At the same time, there are risks. If governance mechanics can be changed too easily, it opens the door to manipulation or rushed decisions that destabilize the system.
One way to balance adaptability and stability might be to require higher thresholds or longer deliberation periods for meta-proposals than for regular proposals. Another option could be introducing advisory stages before final binding votes.
I think this is an area worth exploring. Should the DAO have the ability to modify its own decision-making framework, and if so, what safeguards are necessary to protect the integrity of the process?