Hey everyone,
I’ve been thinking about how different DAOs structure their proposal timelines, and I’m curious what people here think about time-based vs. event-based voting. Most protocols today rely on time-based cycles—weekly or monthly governance windows where proposals are batched and voted on. It’s predictable and gives people a rhythm to follow, but sometimes it feels slow or disconnected from what’s actually happening in the ecosystem.
On the other hand, event-based governance—where votes are triggered by specific conditions like protocol revenue thresholds, security incidents, or user-initiated proposals reaching a certain support level—seems more responsive. But it can also lead to proposal fatigue or chaotic timing, especially if people aren’t expecting votes to happen at odd hours or during inactive periods.
I’m wondering if anyone here has experimented with hybrid models. For example, what if we had a scheduled governance cycle, but allowed emergency or milestone-triggered votes to bypass that window when needed? Or a cooldown period that only kicks in if a quorum is met early?
As Unit Zero scales and more teams plug into the network, I think refining how and when we vote will really matter. Curious to hear if anyone’s seen good examples—or pitfalls—of either model in action.