RE: Proposal Abuse Alert
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
One concern with having an audit team is that the audit team requires someone to audit their work. And the community will again have to do the work of auditing, but this time they'd have to audit the work of the audit team. At the end of the day, it seems to me, the community is the final evaluator of the work done. In a traditional hierarchical corporation the CEO is the final evaluator.
If someone is paid funds from the DAO to evaluate work, another concern is also that this entity is subject to corruption/collusion with the proposal creator whose work has to be evaluated.
0
0
0.000
I still like the idea of an audit team: one role could be someone who is well versed in verifying / actual code audit, my guess is this person is weaker in skills around project / communications management. The weekly updates might come from someone with the role of communications. The issue does still stand with corruption. Rotation could help that but we'd have to have a better funnel of recruitment and people with skills in C. Maybe Hive Audit is not the right word, but Hive Jobs.
Auditor may just be one job, depending on workload. A rotating CEO of these jobs could help with the corruption element.
Proposals should have a model of holding half the award too until code is reviewed by auditor. If passes the sniff test the last half is paid out thru a vested model. If not, it's given back to the DAO.
These are half baked ideas thou obv. Thanks for your input