Big thanks for putting this together @Erik_Knobl
Opened a doc here to migrate the proposal to the updated format for budget requests as per P-22: DAO Governance Structure Upgrade - [DRAFT[] - Agency Sub-DAO - Google Docs
Happy to jump on and riff on this to turn it around quickly if helpful just lmk. 
–
I agree with Gordo here. Assuming Agency is eventually spun out as a profit-making entity, I believe it makes sense for the Foundation to own a portion of this. What this would mean in real terms regarding the impact on value return is:
- DAO is invested in the long-term success of the project
- DAO only benefits financially in two circumstances: if the Owners of the Agency entity take profit in dividends (Foundation would get equivalent cash against their % ownership), if there is a financing/liquidity event (DAO could sell its shares to investors)
In the meantime, whilst the Agency lives within the Foundation, it would be good to get clarity on the legal status of the projects in the Agency, as you understand it. Taking woop pay for example, is there an entity created around this or are we assuming it is running through the Foundation?
If it’s through the foundation we need to update the T&Cs and Privacy Policies to reflect this.
If they are running through the Foundation, where is the grant funding secured by projects currently being sent? Direct to contributors, somewhere else?
There are probably some knock questions here depending on your answer. As defined in P-22: DAO Governance Structure Upgrade according to the rules any Sub-DAO without it’s own entity needs to adhere to the Foundations processes
Were these calculated using the original 15 CODE per hour rate?