Dopewars

Fellow Hustlers.

With the $Paper inflate complete the time has come to make a decision whether to effectively disable the DAO’s ability to inflate further. Execution of this is not difficult to achieve but the process might be a little different to what some people might have thought. I will attempt to explain in plain speak what it is.

The contract that created $Paper was made to be subordinate to the Governing contract (DOPE). It was made like this to ensure that when the DAO voted to confirm a function then the immutability of the block chain/smart contract would automatically execute the function. You can think of it like the DOPE contract being the ‘Don’ and the $Paper contract being the ‘hit-man’. Once the Don has issued a command to the hit-man, from thereon it’s not personal, it’s just business.

In the same way that the Don can release the hit-man from his oath of service, we can vote on a Tally proposal that will renounce the DOPE contract ownership of the $Paper contract. This would be achieved by transferring (renouncing) that ownership to a dead address or burning as it is commonly known and called.

So as you can see it is not just a matter of flicking a switch to turn it off. This is an important distinction because relinquishing ownership of the $Paper contract means we, as a DAO, would no longer have control of it. This would mean we can no longer command it to inflate as we have just done. But it would also mean we could not command it to achieve other outcomes. I (we the core contributors) assess that this would not be a major barrier preventing us from achieving any success. We have solved the major problem of having no assets for the DAO with the mint we have just completed.

There is the matter of the optics to consider. Renouncement of control could potentially look less than ideal to some people in the sense that it is kind of like a vote of no confidence in the governance structures ability to make savvy decisions. But in the same breath I would add that, to others, the optics would look desirable in the sense that it is a shot of confidence to the tokens integrity. In a time when we are looking to consolidate and grow considerably this is perhaps the most important factor in this proposal.

So without any further ado, I propose that we vote on whether we should Renounce Ownership of the $Paper Contract and therefore effectively cancel the mint function.

Should we Renounce Ownership as described above. The vote is a simple Yes/No.

Taniela.Taki