DAO ID

[thelastjosh]

The goal: define and add an “id” for DAOs. I.e., an "id" field within daoURI.

Draft specification being developed here.

Questions to resolve:

• Do DAOs need “ids”? What about the loose, amorphous vision of a DAO, composed of many loosely-affiliated parts? Can you assign an “id” to that? Nonetheless, many DAOs DO effectively have unique IDs, i.e. their main governance contract. Insofar as all the loosely-affiliated parts can agree on a daoURI, the daoURI effectively becomes an id. But if you take this emergent definition / want people to treat daoURI itself as the ID, then any random thing could point their daoURI at a DAO’s daoURI, and “be part of the DAO”. That doesn’t work!
• Should DAO ID just be the CAIP-10 address of the main governance contract?
• Should DAO ID be ANY smart contract in the DAO’s contract space (including the registration contract)? I.e. so long as they all agree. Insofar as there are multiple governance contracts, as long as they cite the same daoURI, and contractsURI includes all those contracts, then it should be good. You know they “belong” together.
• Can the DAO ID change, or should we expect DAO ID to be permanent? What if they upgrade the main governance contract? Do they then HAVE to change the id? Would that fuck a lot of things up?

[thelastjosh]

Just pinged Bumblefu***. Maybe meet up at ETHcc?

[thelastjosh]

Finalized the contract this week!

[thelastjosh]

This is the post from Juan / Bumblefu** ! https://learningproof.xyz/bags-of-URIs-all-the-way-down/

[thelastjosh]

May want to ping Graham Novak of ConstitutionDAO / Mezzanine about getting involved in the DAO ID working group.