Hey @refri -
thanks for raising this. I would say there are two answers here:
a) GnosisDAO vs Gnosis Ltd.
b) Governance of the DAO
First point a)
There is still a company: Gnosis Ltd. that still has its own independent budget and can make independent decisions. In this concrete case there was never a DAO vote to support Agave (other than the funds to help out with the hack) and in fact no DAO funds have been used to support the Agave team. Instead, they have been contracted from the Ltd.
Therefore, when we (Ltd., Agave team, Karpatkey) discussed wether it would make sense to continue that we did not went through a DAO process.
So I think the tweet should have said Gnosis Ltd. instead of Gnosis DAO. That being said - regardless it would have been worth to lay out reasoning and open up a discussion here in the forum.
b) I think DAO governance is not in the greatest state. How I would describe the state currently: proposals that come from the outside (while sometimes low quality) often don’t get any real attention even if interesting. What is missing here IMO is some tiered approach. Asking a lot of people (GNO holder) to pay attention to some (maybe random) forum post is already a relatively bis ask. So ideally there was some path where a few people (that have already some merits in the DAO) have a role of vetting new proposals and those could bring the proposal into a further stage. Also - Gnosis deals with so many different topics that it might make sense to have categories for proposals to make sure the right people can pay attention.
On the other hand - proposals that come from the “inside” (from people working full time on or around Gnosis) often are almost decided already once they hit the forum. Not sure how to fix that other than encouraging everyone to post ideas as early as possible into the forum.
I know @auryn_macmillan and Gnosis guild also had some ideas and interest in improving GnosisDAO governance - would be curious to hear your suggestions!