P19: S1 Specification & Budget

The DevRel team has a dedicated budget for 1 article per week, so I think this should be possible.


IDK how realistic it is. To track this, we can make posts in the job channel mandatory with a shortener (eg bit.ly) and delete all that disrespect that. I think that some shorteners do have some information collecting and there we can use it to collect discord name + ask later if the application was successful.

1 Like

from speaking with the team in discord here, the revised KPIs are as follows:

  • Launch School of code with 1 Project track and 1 Fundamentals track
  • Add 5 more Projects lessons post MVP
  • 200 people completed a lesson

The proposal will be update accordingly.

missed this sorry. I’ll amend this to 50 people so it is more achievable. The plan I currently have for tracking this is regular check-ins with our partners who are posting jobs on our job board in Season 1 but that will need support from Partnerships Leads.

I wonder if there is a conversation to be had with @Colin4ward @Bobbay and co about success metrics tracking with partners? Unsure if they have this on their mind already…

Each partner can have its metric sheet for every fulfillment. It could be something like the one below.

  • How many have found a job through the pallet board
  • How many views on each blog post
  • Newsletter views (already happening)
  • Newsletter on-clicks to the sponsor’s graphic/links
  • Attendees for twitter spaces

We should definitely track it, especially as future sponsors will ask about this information. We can add this to the airtable probably

While I support this proposal, it is important to note that the budgeted $CODE outflow from the treasury is ~2x the first estimated amount and ~8.8% of total treasury $CODE.

This also sees the DAO accrue obligations towards the Community & Design guild leaders which is undesirable.

Ideally in Season 1, we can improve the budgeting process to get more context around total outflows.

1 Like

I also am not sure we are going to get the necessary feedback around ownership of Key Results. It may make sense to remove the measurable key results, leaving the objectives, for further development with responsible parties as the season begins.

Have updated the Key Results with ones I know we have defined responsibility for. Believe @luan put his name against others, would you mind confirming which @luan?

I’d like OKRs to be meaningful as well. Rather than remove it, I’d prefer we lean into assigning that responsibility or refining the ones we have in place.

@chuck25 and @Wikist how do you feel about this? Given you updated description that focuses on putting in place infra to support folks to apply for grants, I understand if you don’t want to be responsible for this and I would be happy to take it on as part of Coordination work.

1 Like

Completely agree. Where do we think is the best place to record this? Airtable? Somewhere else?

Also, are you and @Colin4ward happy to be assigned ownership of this Key Result:

Thanks for the tag @kempsterrrr. I don’t think it makes a lot of sense for anyone to be responsible for these fundraising outcomes in S1. For a few reasons:

  1. We don’t yet know what it will take to make D_D into a well-oiled machine for receiving ecosystem grants. @Wikist and my job will begin with Discovery and Problem Identification before we start building the solutions (infrastructure) which will lead to successful grants.
  2. Having a quantitative target could also be a perverse incentive for the DAO, whereby projects are applying for grants before they are ready or D_D projects are competing with each other for grants. In both of these instances, the long-term fundraising potential of D_D and its projects could be hurt.
  3. My hypothesis is that D_D grantseeking will be decentralized. So there will be an office that supports projects to find their own grants but that office isn’t responsible for getting the grants. Like how a university’s career services office functions; they provide you resources for jobseeking and they can help organize both sides of the employment marketplace (recruiters and jobseekers) but they are not actually responsible for whether you get a job or not. I am certainly open to your and others’ ideas about this hypothesis, and expect my assumptions to be tested during the first few weeks of S1.

Airtable since everything else is there.

I appreciate the objectives, but with the current market conditions, I’m not sure this is viable. It is also a commission role, so I don’t want to give off the wrong image that we prioritize any partnership to reach a goal.

When we say revenue-generating partnerships, they don’t have to be S1 partnerships.

1 Like

8 partnerships is reasonable. Not sure about 100 jobs.

1 Like

A format error, this bullet point should be in the same level of the below

1 Like

does our budget cover this unsure allocation?

It does not out of a desire to move forward with S1 one. The intention is for the [DRAFT] Stewards proposal to define these levels.

We have already 18 mentors putting in their time for 23 mentees at the time of writing. It would be nice to see them get some recognition. I’m sure all innocently overlooked. :wink:


1 Like


in addition to the one you already have me marked down beside, I also put my name against both of these in the Airtable

apologies I never replied to this. your approach makes total sense and I agree with everything you’ve said. that said, an ambition of mine during season 1 playing the coordination role is to try to reorientate thinking in the DAO to a stronger focus on generating value for members, rather than investing so much time and energy in “being a DAO” and folks not feeling like they can drive things forward/being too worried about the process. I agree I don’t think we should rush into funding but do you think the idea of having a number of grants/funding targets is fundamentally bad or is it just the idea of someone being responsible for it?

I am aligned with you philosophically on wanting to Get Shit Done in S1 after months and months of bureaucratic struggles.

So I hate to this, but I think a quantitative target for S1 is fundamentally a bad idea. Here’s an example:
-Project A applies for an ecosystem grant from the Star blockchain
-Project B applies for an ecosystem grant from the Star blockchain

Star blockchain’s grant team reviews these grant proposals and doesn’t understand why D_D has two teams working on Star ecosystem grant proposals which aren’t coordinating with each other. Star’s grants lead contacts D_D’s MBD lead, who knows a little bit about Project A and Project B but not enough to clear up the confusion, so they start a group DM thread with Project A & Project B leads and the Star blockchain lead. Now for the first time Project A & B are talking to each other and realize that they could have submitted a proposal together to Star.

Star is like wtf is going on at D_D, why are they so disorganized?

Star doesn’t fund A or B because of the confusion, and discounts every future proposal that comes from D_D because of this. Now D_D’s leadership decides to use social capital to convince Star to give D_D projects another chance.

[This scenario is much less likely to happen with sound fundraising infrastructure, systems, and processes. For the long-term success of D_D fundraising, we need to get our house in order before we invite outsiders into it.]