Yeah so from the original structure proposal, https://gov.tally.cash/t/tally-ho-dao-structure-proposal/455
The Elder Doggos play an important role here, among others, to signal cases like these early on and support in guiding the ship.
Secondly there’s this:
“Packs are funded by the DAO. The DAO allocates a budget to a vesting contract. The vested tokens are a discretionary budget for the Pack. The DAO can stop vesting and pull back remaining unvested tokens in the case of a recall.”
"And: “Grants. → milestone based vesting”
I believe this is in-line with what you mean, the DAO can stop vesting and pull back the unvested funds.
These are all intended to prevent and mitigate cases like these.
The Elder Doggos should be the most important of TallyHo .We should be trust them.
You have give me the answer of my question.Thank you so much.
Wish TallyHo will become more and more perfect!
I have been considering tokenomics lately and ways in which a token can actually represent value to a holder. Mostly I have seen from tokenomics much of the value comes from voting rights and market cap. This makes sense as if you are in control of a treasury with a certain token that token has value. In this sense tokens are much like stocks. Company value goes up stock goes up etc. But too often that value is perceived more than reality. The real value is voting rights and control of the treasury for doggo. But often the larger holders control the vote, which means although smaller tokens have perceived value the actual utility becomes less. I have participated in a number of daos and as a smaller holder have always felt my vote really doesn’t matter very much. So then where is the true sharing of the treasury rather than just a perceived sharing. I would suggest two possible avenues. First that the dao use a quadratic voting process where votes are weighted by how many tokens you have. A person voting with one token would be fully weighted whereas the next token would be slightly less and so on until whales have influence but smaller votes still very much matter. Secondly, why not a real share of the treasury. Obviously the health of protocol and the product are paramount, but what if a small percentage of accrued funds were distributed directly to doggo holders once a quarter or once a year. Consider it like a stock dividend. This would make owning doggo as truly owning a share in the wallet and would solve the perceived (still important) versus actual value problem. Additionally because the dividend might be paid in another token besides doggo (which I would recommend) doggo has holding pressure versus selling pressure for the other token. This could be done more simply by burning an equal amount of doggo to a percentage of treasury but once again that value isn’t as clear as receiving a portion of the treasury. If Doggo is really community driven and guided, it seems to me that the token itself should represent this in all the ways it can. Just something to consider on the flow of funds and the tokenomics behind doggo.