Community Goal

We are exploring a new form of Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) to manage our project, aiming to overcome the various issues that have plagued traditional DAO structures in the past. This new community model is designed to enhance transparency, inclusivity, and efficiency within our community, ensuring that every member has a voice and a stake in the project's future.

Our new DAO model focuses on creating a more robust and resilient governance framework. By leveraging cutting-edge blockchain technology, we aim to streamline decision-making processes and improve coordination among community members. This approach ensures that all decisions are made democratically, with input from a diverse range of stakeholders.

Based on our initial promises when the NFTs were first released, individuals who own 10 or more NFTs are granted direct participation in the project's decision-making process. This privilege allows them to have a significant influence on the direction and development of the Liberty Cats ecosystem. By giving these dedicated community members a voice in the decision-making process, we ensure that the project's evolution aligns closely with the interests and vision of those who are most invested in its success. This approach fosters a more engaged and empowered community, encouraging active participation and collaboration among our members.

Challenges of Traditional DAOs

Traditional DAOs have encountered several significant challenges:

1. Decision-Making Inefficiencies: Reaching a consensus among a large, decentralized group can be extremely difficult and time-consuming.

2. Coordination Problems: Effectively coordinating activities and aligning member incentives is challenging in a decentralized environment.

3. Lack of Accountability: Holding members accountable for their actions and decisions is often problematic in traditional DAOs.

4. Challenges Posed by Arrow's Impossibility Theorem: Voting systems in DAOs can produce inconsistent or irrational outcomes due to the inherent conflicts between the criteria outlined by Arrow's theorem. This theorem highlights the difficulties in designing a perfect voting system that satisfies all desirable criteria, such as fairness, non-dictatorship, and consistency.

Especially, Arrow's Impossibility Theorem, a cornerstone of social choice theory, outlines the inherent challenges in designing a perfect voting system. This theorem, states that no voting system can simultaneously fulfill all of the following criteria when there are three or more options:

1. Non-Dictatorship: No single individual's preferences should dictate the group's decision.

2. Unanimity: If every member prefers one option over another, the group should reflect this preference.

3. Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives: The group's preference between two options should not be influenced by a third, irrelevant option.

4. Transitivity: If the group prefers option A over B and B over C, then it should prefer A over C.

5. Universal Domain: All individual preference orderings should be allowed.

Scenario: 3 Options and 3 Voters

Let's consider a simple case with three options (A, B, and C) and three voters (Voter 1, Voter 2, and Voter 3). Each voter has a preference ordering for these options.

Preferences

• Voter 1: A > B > C，A > B > C，A > B > C

• Voter 2: B > C > A，B > C > A，B > C > A

• Voter 3: C > A > B，C > A > B，C > A > B

To illustrate this with a simple example, let's consider a voting scenario with three options and three voters. Below is a table representing the preferences of each voter.

	Voter 1	Voter 2	Voter 3
1st Preference	A	B	C
2nd Preference	B	C	A
3rd Preference	C	A	B

Let's analyze the collective preferences of the group based on these individual preferences. We'll use a simple majority rule to determine the group's preference between each pair of options.

Pairwise Comparison:

1. Option A vs. Option B:

• Voter 1 prefers A over B

• Voter 2 prefers B over A

• Voter 3 prefers A over B

• Result: Option A is preferred over Option B (2-1)

2. Option A vs. Option C:

• Voter 1 prefers A over C

• Voter 2 prefers C over A

• Voter 3 prefers C over A

• Result: Option C is preferred over Option A (2-1)

3. Option B vs. Option C:

• Voter 1 prefers B over C

• Voter 2 prefers B over C

• Voter 3 prefers C over B

• Result: Option B is preferred over Option C (2-1)

From the pairwise comparisons, we can derive the following group preference order:

• Option A is preferred over Option B.

• Option B is preferred over Option C.

• Option C is preferred over Option A.

Thus, the collective preference order is: Option C > Option A > Option B > Option C. Which is obviously weird.

This collective preference order can vary significantly based on the individual preferences and the chosen voting method. Arrow's theorem implies that it's impossible to design a voting system that will always satisfy all the desirable criteria, leading to potential inconsistencies and inefficiencies in group decision-making.

Approach to Overcoming These Challenges

To address these issues, we are developing an innovative DAO structure that incorporates advanced governance mechanisms and robust security protocols:

1. Efficient Governance Mechanisms:

• Quadratic Voting: This system allows participants to express the intensity of their preferences, mitigating the power of large stakeholders and promoting fairer outcomes.

• Delegative Democracy: Also known as liquid democracy, this system enables participants to delegate their voting power to trusted representatives, combining the advantages of both direct and representative democracy.

1. Incentive Alignment:

• Reward Systems: Creating structured reward mechanisms that align individual incentives with the long-term goals of the project, encouraging active participation and long-term commitment.

• Token Economics: Designing a robust token economy where the utility and value of the token are clear, driving engagement and investment from the community.

1. Transparency and Accountability:

• Clear Roles and Responsibilities: Defining specific roles and responsibilities within the DAO to ensure accountability.

• Transparent Reporting Mechanisms: Implementing systems that allow for transparent tracking and reporting of decisions and actions, ensuring all members can see and understand the processes and outcomes.

1. Community Engagement and Education:

• Regular Community Meetings: Hosting regular virtual meetings to discuss project updates, gather feedback, and make collective decisions.

• Educational Resources: Providing resources and training to help community members understand the DAO's operations and how they can contribute effectively.

Future Directions

Our goal is to continuously evolve and improve the DAO structure based on community feedback and technological advancements. Future plans include:

• Integration with Other DAOs: Exploring partnerships and collaborations with other DAOs to share knowledge and resources.

• Advanced Governance Tools: Developing and integrating more sophisticated governance tools to further enhance decision-making efficiency and transparency.

• Scalability Solutions: Implementing solutions to ensure the DAO can scale effectively as the project grows.

By pioneering this new form of DAO, we aim to create a more robust, secure, and efficient governance model that not only addresses the shortcomings of traditional DAOs but also sets a new standard for decentralized project management.