Redbelly DAO Task Board logo

Governance record

Redbelly DAO Governance Changelog

The single reference for what is currently in force. Every entry sourced to a primary vote, poll, or proposal record.

Covers 3 Sep 2025 to 24 Jul 2026. 30 Snapshot proposals reviewed, 15 structural.

01Current-State Summary

As of publication

  • Governing documents. Redbelly Community DAO operates under two ratified governing documents: Constitution v1.2 (ratified via Snapshot proposal #2, 20 Sep 2025, 100% For, 1.8m RBNT voted) and Code of Conduct v1.0 (ratified via Snapshot proposal #9, 6 Oct 2025, 92.97% For).
  • Proposal record. Of 30 Snapshot proposals on record, 18 passed, 8 rejected (including Guild Structure Consolidation, corrected below), 3 multi-choice elections with no single pass or reject label, 1 test proposal with no governance effect.
  • Voting duration. 5 days for standard proposals (since the Oct 2025 Snapshot Voting Duration proposal), 3 days for elections, which is an unwritten convention nowhere in the ratified constitution text.
  • Voter eligibility. Snapshot proposal #28 (5 Jul 2026, 53.76% For) passed and states it removes the whitelist requirement for general members. The Snapshot GraphQL strategies field shows a whitelist strategy still attached to both proposals created after it, Amendment to Leadership Structure and High Council Elections. The vote passed, the configuration was not updated to match.
  • Leadership structure. Set by "Amendment to Leadership Structure" (Jul 2026) and the High Council Elections that closed the same month, superseding both Constitution Section 2 and the Nov 2025 Leadership document.

Constitution v1.2, dated Sep 2025, was followed by a v1.3 dated 12 Aug 2026, but v1.3's ratification could not be verified: no matching Snapshot proposal exists, and its version history cites a "constitutional questionnaire" with no vote record, the same pattern already excluded elsewhere in this changelog. Neither version reflects current voting duration or leadership structure. The proposals listed above are what is actually in force, not either ratified text alone.

02Verification Flag

Resolved: passed, not applied

Proposal #28 passed 5 Jul 2026, 53.76% For. The Snapshot GraphQL strategies field for the two proposals created after it, Amendment to Leadership Structure (#29) and High Council Elections (#30), both still list a whitelist strategy, unchanged from every proposal before #28. The vote passed. The DAO's voting configuration was not updated to match it.

03Chronological Changelog

Showing 30 of 30 proposals.

04Discord Poll-Only Entry

Poll-only, never reached Snapshot, unratified

Quadratic Voting Adoption

Date
1 Mar 2026, Discord poll
Result
Approved at 75%, announced as active by the DAO
Constitution section
Section 2.3, Voting Power, would have changed RBNT-weighted voting to quadratic
Applied
No. No proposal in the 30-item Snapshot archive uses quadratic voting as a ballot type or as a strategy. Proposals created after 1 Mar 2026 ran ordinary weighted ballots on unchanged token-weighted voting power. This is a passed decision that was never implemented.

05Disputed Item, Resolved With Reasoning

DAO Guild Structure, Consolidation, Resolved: rejected, not implemented

Proposal #5 closed 20 Sep 2025 with 42.95% For against a 56.71% Abstain plurality and 0.34% Against. Abstain outpolled For, so on a majority-of-all-votes-cast reading the proposal did not pass. Remove the earlier claim that Snapshot assigned a Passed status: the API's state field returns only open or closed, there is no pass or reject field. Constitution Section 3 still lists all five original pods, Marketing, Builder/Develop, Researcher, Community, Partnerships, direct evidence the Partnerships-and-Research merger never took effect. If it had, Section 3 would list fewer than five pods.

Snapshot's own frontend displays a "Passed" badge for this proposal, because its UI compares only For against Against and treats Abstain as neutral, under which For (42.95%) beat Against (0.34%) by a wide margin. This changelog applies a stricter majority-of-all-votes-cast standard consistently: Abstain's 56.71% plurality means For did not achieve a majority, so this entry records the proposal as Rejected. The live page's badge reflects a different methodology, not a data disagreement.

06Unratified and Unresolved Items

Not a ratification event: Feb 2026 Google Form

A Google Form titled "DAO Constitution Ratification, YES/NO Vote" ran 11 to 14 Feb 2026 with 9 to 10 respondents. This is not how the Constitution was ratified. The actual ratification is Snapshot proposal #2, closed 20 Sep 2025, matching the version-history line inside the Constitution document itself. The form used a self-defined 60% adoption threshold that appears nowhere in Constitution Section 9's amendment process, which requires 7-day notice and a 5-day token-weighted vote. Do not log this form's items as ratified constitutional changes.

Found, ratification unverified: Constitution v1.3

Snapshot proposal #28 (Jul 2026) lists a "Constitution v1.3" as a supporting document. That document has since been located: published 12 Aug 2026, after the Snapshot data pull this changelog is built from (proposals through #30, 24 Jul 2026). Its own version history line reads "1.3, Governance consolidation incorporating ratified constitutional questionnaire and meeting clarifications," no Snapshot proposal number, no date. No proposal for a v1.3 ratification vote appears anywhere in the 30-proposal record. Either it was ratified via a Snapshot proposal created after #30 and falls outside this review's data, or it was ratified some other way. The phrase "constitutional questionnaire" closely echoes the Feb 2026 Google Form already excluded above for not meeting Section 9's amendment requirements. If v1.3 went through the same process, the same concern applies to it directly. Flagged as open, not resolved in either direction.

View Constitution v1.3

What changed: v1.3 drops Section 3, Working Groups (Pods), entirely, and renumbers every later section down by one. Section 4 (Governance Process) becomes Section 3, Section 5 (Conflict of Interest) becomes 4, Section 6 (Treasury Management) becomes 5, Section 7 (Contributor Expectations) becomes 6, Section 8 (Community Involvement) becomes 7, Section 9 (Amendments) becomes 8, Section 10 (Founding Principles) becomes 9. Every "Section N" reference in the Chronological Changelog table above cites v1.2, the ratified text actually in force for this changelog's entire 3 Sep 2025 to 24 Jul 2026 window; use this mapping to translate to v1.3.

This reinforces the Guild Consolidation finding above rather than reversing it. v1.3, the newest constitutional text, has no Working Groups (Pods) section at all, not three pods as proposal #5 asked for, not five as the pre-#5 status quo. Per the Discord record obtained during this review, guild channels were removed roughly 2 Aug 2026, and guild leadership roles were replaced by General DAO Leaders during the Jan 2026 elections, proposal #18. Both post-date proposal #5 by four to ten months and do not match what #5 specifically asked for, folding two of five pods into the other three. Pods disappeared eventually, on a different timeline, through a different mechanism, not the one proposal #5 described. That remains consistent with #5 itself never having been implemented.

07Data Gaps

Resolved. Exact dates and vote-choice percentages for all 30 proposals are sourced to the Snapshot GraphQL API (hub.snapshot.org/graphql), which returns start, end, scores, and scores_total with no authentication required.

Resolved. The strategies field confirms a whitelist strategy attached to every proposal from Constitution ratification through High Council Elections. See Verification Flag.

Partially resolved. Constitution v1.3, referenced in proposal 28, has been located (published 12 Aug 2026), linked in Unratified and Unresolved Items above. How it was ratified has not: no matching Snapshot proposal exists in the 30-proposal record.

Proposals 10, 18, and 30 are multi-choice or ranked-choice votes, not For/Against/Abstain, so they are reported as winner-by-power rather than Passed/Rejected.