[Archived][DRAFT] DAO Operators

Yes, for specific projects!

Iā€™m a strong supporter of better defining ā€œpaid operatorsā€ for the DAO and ensuring tighter scoping of responsibilities and accountability. One thing to note before I forget is they probably shouldnā€™t be employeeā€™s, but independent services providers for the DAO. Might be worth updating language if this proposal goes ahead.

Quote a lot to unpack hereā€¦

First question, how do you see this playing with [DRAFT 2] Rewarding Contributions in $CODE?

In its current form it seems to supersede this proposal and its not clear to me how theyā€™d co-exist smoothly. Will try and bullet point concerns here:

  • Can these roles be performed but one person or shared out?
  • Given @Colin4ward comment in the recent initiative lead meeting regarding $CODE rewards being a non-starter in their eyes and needing to calculate in USD, does that mean weā€™re going to have $5-10k USD for one person to ā€œleadā€ the team whilst everyone is also paid in USD equivalent?
  • How will this affect incentives, motivations and rewards for contributing for other ā€œnon-paidā€ members? Theyā€™ll be doing a lot of work but getting a fraction of the rewards no?
  • What role do these people have in their perspective guild budget applications? Are you proposing we elect these roles completely independently of the Budget Application process defined in [DRAFT 2] Rewarding Contributions in $CODE. And if so, how do you see that working? How are people going to create budgets when they donā€™t know who the lead that will primarily responsible for these KPIs is going to be?
  • More broadly, this proposal is allocating responsibility and KPIs to groups so it feels like regardless of that role the lead plays in defining budgets ala the last question these budgets canā€™t really be made until this proposal is formalised. This seems like it could add huge delays to starting season 1.

It seems we have lots of competing approaches trying to address the challenges, I wonder how we can bring them together. My plan this week was the focus entirely on supporting teams to generate their budgets, but with all these unanswered questions not entirely clear to me how weā€™re doing this now.

My intention was for the budget proposal to define much of what is being defined here.

Maybe a synchronous could would be wise.?

How are Core Operators paid?
Their salary will be a base of USD amount, with $CODE incentives depending on achievement of KPIs. This proposal recommends valuing the positions in USD and then replacing 30% of that with $CODE equivalent.

Am i understanding this correctly whereby if X ā€œpaid operatorā€ is rewarding $10,000, $3,000 of that will be providing in $CODE at market rate? If thatā€™s the case, when does this proposal suggest that rate is decidedā€¦ each month? start of the Season? End of the Season?

Furthermore, given the $CODE token could see significant market volatility, have you put any thought yet to the impact this may have on the treasury balance? A lot of $CODE is potentially being allocated here without any clarity on the impact it will have on available $CODE. We donā€™t want $CODE going to 0 quickly, right?

Initial Core Operator Roles

Coordination Ops

Accountable for overall organizational process excellence, building internal coordination between guilds and projects.

Tasks to deliver for Season 1:

  • Improve internal coordination and champion process improvements accordingly.
  • Establish monthly cadence for town halls and DAO coordination meetings.
  • Envisioning, definition and creation of Operations Guild for S1.
  • Deliver plans to increase and encourage decentralization efforts in S2.

KPIs:

  • Complete and maintain the legal background for Foundation.
  • Complete and maintain the legal background for revenue-generating projects.
  • Create an internal database of the membership.

Rewards:

  • $8,000 monthly dollars, for one season.

Iā€™ve got initial thoughts on an Operations Guild Budget here. At a very highly level itā€™s infrastructure, finance/legal/budget processes, DAO wide coordination. There is a lot of overlap which is nice to see but it seems like

It seems youā€™ve opted for allocating finance to the Governance Guild so would be good to understand why youā€™re advocating for that and if youā€™ve got any thoughts on what that might entail?

Why not a treasury guild that stands alone?

Community Guild Lead

Accountable for the overall engagement of members of the DAO.

Tasks to deliver for Season 1:

  • Establish minimum viable contribution model for $CODE eligibility
  • Deliver documented onboarding process & KPI for measuring itā€™s success
  • Deliver plans to increase and encourage the diversity of the membership and leadership of the DAO in S2.

KPIs:

  • Onboard 350 new members (>3/day)
  • 100 documented minimum viable contributions

Like the goals here.

MBD Guild Lead

Accountable for increasing revenue with external relationships.

Tasks to deliver for Season 1:

  • Develop a partnership pipeline with qualifying factors for paid and unpaid partnerships.
  • Deliver S2 sponsorship package at end of S1
  • Request for financial support template that enables initiatives to request funding solicitations

KPIs:

  • $50k/month in S1 sponsorship
  • 95% fulfillment on sponsorship obligations

Temporality and Rewards:

  • $5,000 monthly dollars, for one season.

Seem like sensible tasks. The target for $50k sponsorship in Season 1 seems low though considering all the costs included in this proposal and then, as mentioned above, the thoughts on the last initiative leads call regarding $CODE rewards being a non-starter. If we only hit that number they I worry no one is going to be paid close to the amounts being suggested here.

I will update the financial model for the DAO with a scenario that includes these figures and see what weā€™re left with :slight_smile:

Gov and Treasury Guild Lead

Accountable for managing the strategy for $CODE

Tasks to deliver in Season 1:

  • Develop a comprehensive treasury strategy, with a proposed $CODE burn rate, buyback schedule, and optional mint rate.
  • Model 12 month DAO cash flow, updated once per quarter. Due by the second week of S1.
  • Refine budget application and approval process.
  • Guide discussion on $CODE delegation process.

KPIs:

  • Final S1 treasury balance within 15% of proposal
  • Define Delegation process (if any) by Snapshot vote.

Temporality and Rewards:

  • $3000 monthly dollars, for one season.

This seems like of the highest impact set of tasks and goals but with the lowest reward, interested to understand why. Believe finance should sit with ops (at least for S1 as there are legal/Tax implications for the decisions that may be made. A lot the ground work for finances has already been done with the current ops team so feels like it would make sense for this to live there, with an aim to decentralised treasury management out (maybe to itā€™s own guild?) once weā€™re confident we understand the ins and outs of tax/finance/legal


Most of the rest of it seems relatively straight forward although taking a break and will look again. One important questions left, did you speak with any of the guilds re these changes beforehand?

Can these roles be performed but one person or shared out?

Both options can work. I will specify that.

What role do these people have in their perspective guild budget applications?

I would expect the elected persons to be highly involved in their guilds already.

Am i understanding this correctly whereby if X ā€œpaid operatorā€ is rewarding $10,000, $3,000 of that will be providing in $CODE at market rate? If thatā€™s the case, when does this proposal suggest that rate is decidedā€¦ each month? start of the Season? End of the Season?

Good point. This isnā€™t defined well. And neither the impact on the treasury.
I see the following possibilities:

  • No $CODE incentives.
  • Instead of percent, a defined amount.
  • Guilds handle this part.
  • Any other suggestion?

It seems youā€™ve opted for allocating finance to the Governance Guild so would be good to understand why youā€™re advocating for that and if youā€™ve got any thoughts on what that might entail?

The reasoning is that they have been handling all the $CODE launch, and they are usually the reference when dealing with treasury issues. However, a stand alone treasury guild would work well in the future too.

This seems like of the highest impact set of tasks and goals but with the lowest reward, interested to understand why.

Yeah, perhaps we leaned too much on the expected hours invested. The roles and the amounts can/should be evaluated by budget stewards for the final proposal.

Most of the rest of it seems relatively straight forward although taking a break and will look again. One important questions left, did you speak with any of the guilds re these changes beforehand?

This proposal was discussed in the last initiative-leads call, and members of all guilds were present.

@Erik_Knobl thoughts on electing a Developer DAO board before choosing or finalizing DAO operators?

@Erik_Knobl thoughts on electing a Developer DAO board before choosing or finalizing DAO operators?

Can you specify what would be the concept behind this, and why it should be created before?
This proposal is responding to a need we have to deliver a concrete framework for our current operators with a contract that will finish this month.

1 Like

thanks for the responses. my general feeling is this proposal and [DRAFT 2] Rewarding Contributions in $CODE need to come together into one succinct proposal and therefore process.

Gov and Treasury Guild Lead

Accountable for establishing the governance mechanism & communication.
Assists with managing the strategy for $CODE

Tasks to deliver in Season 1:

  • Utilize the Governance budget to accomplish project goals.
  • Model 12 month DAO cash flow, updated once per quarter. Due by the second week of S1.
  • Refine budget application and approval process.
  • Develop a decentralization roadmap for the DAO functions (multisig/treasury, proposal governance stewards, etc).
  • Establish $CODE delegation process.
  • Develop a comprehensive treasury strategy, with a proposed $CODE burn rate, buyback schedule, and optional mint rate.

KPIs:

  • Hit X% voting participation for each proposal.
  • Hold weekly Governance & Proposal meetings.
  • Deliver Delegation process.
  • Launch Treasury strategy and process by end of Season 1.

Temporality and Rewards:

  • $3000 monthly dollars, for one season.

We need an accountability mechanism. Each role has its definitions with measurable goals but we need to see work being done on a monthly basis. I suggest a simple template for operators to present on a monthly basis.

It could even be as basic as the one below, but this is the bare minimum that we should accept as a DAO so people throughout the DAO can discuss whether the leader is keeping the guild on track.

  1. Overview (how are they reaching their key objectives)
  2. Next Steps
  3. Other comments

Each guild can present its summaries in a different way, but we should include summaries as a key responsibility for operators.

2 Likes

We need an accountability mechanism. Each role has its definitions with measurable goals but we need to see work being done on a monthly basis. I suggest a simple template for operators to present on a monthly basis.

Totally! A monthly report sounds great. Any other low-lift suggestions?

2 Likes

@g01din.eth

Iā€™m going to encourage us to be pedantic about focusing on a few core goals for Season 1 - in addition to starting small and scaling up gradually. Lofty goals are great and really where my baseline is; but the backend of the onboarding structure being built, is quite layered. Think of the Law of Conservation of Complexity. And as the person leading the Onboarding effort, I will primarily eat that complexity. Our new members will not. This will result in a seamless flow and UX.

Therefore for Season 1, what constitutes ā€˜onboardedā€™ is split into two phases:

  1. Passing through the new Onboarding process

  2. Making 1 minimal viable contribution

1 Like

CC: @Erik_Knobl

Couldnā€™t agree more. Well said. That was my main apprehension, when reading that. Thus Iā€™m against there being a figure attributed to the no. # of members who are onboarded, as we donā€™t yet have enough data to support it at this juncture.

The KPI should instead, be amended to:

A minimum of 80% of people who pass through Phase 1 of onboarding, should go on to pass through Phase 2.

(see my comment just above this)

1 Like

1,000% agree with this.

also, would love to get some clarity on something: are we including a function in the smart contract, to be able mint more tokens if/when the need arises (if a vote passes in favour of it)? And if not, what approaches are we considering, for replenishing $CODE in the treasury? Market buybacks?

maybe I should cc: @willblackburn

Iā€™m going to encourage us to be pedantic about focusing on a few core goals for Season 1 - in addition to starting small and scaling up gradually.

Oh, Iā€™m on board. Would you be so kind and apply it to the whole proposal?

Making 1 minimal viable contribution

Speaking of whichā€¦ what would this mean?

Can you elaborate on this, please? In what context is MVC being thought of, here - and how does this play into $CODE eligibility?

The minimum viable contribution for Season 1 would essentially serve as a v1.0 of the future Guild onboarding.

As a quick reminder, the high-level thought process for onboarding is to be:

DAO-wide ā†’ Guild ā†’ Project

We donā€™t yet have a structure in place for Guild Onboarding, at this early juncture. But the intention is to formulate a framework that Guilds can then build upon and apply, as they see fit. This helps us to foster some cohesiveness in Onboarding across D_D, without it being homogenous.

So the minimum viable contribution idea will definitely exist in future versions of Guild Onboarding (when it becomes more structured), but for right now: all that is required is completing a task that contributes to the Guild (or DAO) in some way. Low-lift, but impactful. One super early example of this, that is currently being workshopped, is the Scribeā€™s project within the Writers Guild. This is largely being championed by @g01din.eth

Yeah, sure. How do I go about doing so? I donā€™t believe I have edit-access

Agree this point. Too much discussion or deabt may slow our nomination progerss

Yes, We have such a function but only our multisign wallet could call it. But from my knowledge, minting more tokens does not have a good impact to the DAO and community, because we have mentioned that the totaly criculation fo CODE is 10m

Community Guild Lead

Accountable for the overall engagement of members of the DAO.

Tasks to deliver for Season 1:

  • Establish minimum viable contribution model for $CODE eligibility
  • Deliver documented onboarding process & KPI for measuring itā€™s success
  • Deliver plans to increase and encourage the diversity of the membership and leadership of the DAO in S2.

Shall we count the fellowship program?

This is the new version of the proposal:

We have received feedback from guilds stating that they want to have input on the definition of the roles and nominations. Each Guild is going to define them in their budget applications.
Still, I would be very interested in your comments in our new version.

1 Like