I think this is an important point.
Is anyone going to be hurting if we donāt accept this proposal before the token is figured out? I donāt want people to go hungry/homeless but I agree with others here (willworth, manny, dhaiwat10, etc) that having $CODE figured out first would be more comfortable.
Is anyone going to be hurting if we donāt accept this proposal before the token is figured out? I donāt want people to go hungry/homeless but I agree with others here (willworth, manny, dhaiwat10, etc) that having $CODE figured out first would be more comfortable.
After much talking, my original vote was āSupport but request changesā. I donāt think weāll figure out our token before we get these deal in place.
Although I was and still am a bit apprehensive on the value and weeds of the requirements I think Iām ok to change this to āMove to snapshotā.
Might also note that this might be on top of any cost of legal, accounting, and any additional services weāll need to pay for.
Let me start by saying I love Gitcoin and have been actively using it for grants, supporting others and for several bounties and hackathons. Itās an awesome project and I believe any partnership will be a net win for both communities.
I do share the concerns from others that we might be doing this in the wrong order, to be honest. Letās focus on our own values and strengths before discussing partnerships. Especially trowing out concrete numbers and allocations while we donāt know our own tokenomics yet. What are the plans for $CODE? Why do we need a token at all? Will it be actively used for actions within the DAO? Do people need it to join the DAO? Or just for governance? If so, how much tokens would they need? Any thoughts on quorum, thresholds, etc. How does GitcoinDAO plan to use $CODE?
Same for both advisors. Iām familiar with both of them, but it would be great if they could introduce themselves in maybe another townhall. Someone also suggested this on the townhall-channel. What will their role be within the DAO? What kind of value will they bring to the DAO? How are they compensated for their work?
I like this partnership because I think we align very well with Gitcoinās mission 
Also, this type of monetary infusion will allow us to scale up, increase awareness about what weāre doing and start to bring on full-time staff to continue growing the DAO. Getting to this point so quickly is great and I think DD and Gitcoin have similar goals vs. other orgs that may want to offer us this level of funding (or above). I.E. this route seems more preferable than taking VC money (or something equivalent) at the moment.
Iāll echo some of the questions above re: how we plan on allocating the money and what contingencies weāll have in place in case DD and Gitcoin start to diverge in terms of culture/values/mission ā I donāt see that happening but worth considering now as itāll help inform our partnerships going forward.
@dabit3 You mentioned in the town hall that weāll be bringing on another advisor with a legal background, which I think is an excellent idea. Not that weād want to delay this since the timeline for the new advisor is TBD, but do you think we should have someone look over the agreement/any documentation with that lens before we proceed?
Great partnership! Thanks for working out this deal.
5% is a big chunk, but I think is more important to move faster and get funds and compensate full-time members than getting greedy about hypothetical future valuations of D_D.
I think this will add value to D_D, especially LONG TERM.
Because at least 25.000 GTC tokens will be always in the treasury. Ok, good! Iām confident that these tokens will remain valuable for the long life of D_D.
But what happens with the other 25.000 GTC tokens? How and when they are used? This should be more transparent in the proposal because is 50% of the deal we canāt see.
To move things faster we could have a second vote, about how these funds will be used.
So the scope of this vote is more concrete.
Re: Amount of the token swap, do the people with concerns think theyād feel more comfortable if we reconsidered the amount of the token swap, maybe moving it to 2.5% for 25,000?
Re: What will the tokens be used for, we can be sure to be more clear about this in the snapshot vote itself, but as a general idea it will probably be used for a combination of paying core contributors (like Will K who is and will be working full time on the DAO, along with any other part time people), administrative services, hosting services, and any other general expenses. We could also use a portion of the allocation to fund any of the DAO projects as mentioned here.
Re: Order of approving this before tokenomics are released. This is also valid feedback, I propose that we only move to take this proposal to snapshot after the tokenomics have been introduced for review, and possibly until after they have been voted upon.
My thoughts are still the same: because Gitcoin supported us so early on, are very aligned with our own missions, values, & goals, and whose good will is, in my opinion, a big part of why we are where we are today, we move forward to snapshot voting with the addendum of:
Yeah, Hope our community could better to better
If we can get an incubator going this DAO could be a unicorn. that saidā¦ Gitcoin have supported as an OG and this could be a mutually beneficial relationship.
by doing this deal I feel like weāre also indirectly pegging a valuation, right? so its like what is our valuation?
Establishing a partnership between Gitcoin & Developer DAO is a no brainer.
I am generally weary of committing to swap of this size this early - especially when the Developer DAO governance token has yet to be established and distributed.
With that being said, I do see value in moving forward with this swap so long as there is an understanding that the Developer DAO is able to diversify its holdings and exchange some portion of GTC for working capital in the form of USDC.
While holding the vast majority of GTC is great for signaling, Developer DAO is more in need of working capital to hire contributors and establish early frameworks for future contributors.
To this point, I would vote in favor of this proposal if there is language stating that Developer DAO may exchange up to X% of the DAOās position to USDC (or any stablecoin) if passed through governance.
If this proposal were happening from scratch today, I would advocate for the amount of Developer DAO ownership being given up to be closer to 2.5% of total supply. However, I agree with @dabit3 that the DAO made a promise, and it must stand by that.
Iād also agree that the swap for GTC should only be presented as a formal vote AFTER the underlying token distribution has been agreed upon by the wider community.
Very much in favor of this collaboration and look forward to more public good treasury diversification proposals!
Some thoughts I have based on some past experience good and bad.
Sometimes, it is easy to get caught up in too much detail. IMHO at this early stage, I donāt think we can ever define everything in detail. Even if we do, there is a high probability we might need to adapt, pivot later on. The only thing that is constant here will be change itself.
However what is important at this early stage is a sense of urgency in building up credibility and momentum. I believe we have momentum and as @dabit3 says, at this early age with Gitcoin backing us up where no-one else have put up their hand yet will automatically elevate our credibility and this can be used to our advantage as a leverage when we commence other types of income generation initiatives.
Valuation changes over time definitely and honestly valuation at this early stage is highly speculative but what is real is 50,000 GTC at the door. So letās have a sense of urgency, put some high level guidelines about what to do with the funding (I believe Nader has put this out nicely now). The only thing I would add is a portion should need to be used as seed/leverage on income generating so the Dao can be self sustainable ASAP.
That said, letās get this to snapshot (after the token distribution has been agreed on). So we can continue to motivate and keep the momentum for everyone, especially members who have been putting in 200% of their time into the Dao.
Weāve got a great opportunity, particularly if you run back the clock to when the discussion first came up. ~500k for 5% is great terms as far as I know. I hear people like this āY Combinatorā thing that does 7% for USD $125k (ref: The Y Combinator Deal | Y Combinator). Thereās a bit of a network effect with Y Combinator - someone deeper on web3 networks would have to attest to the comparability of GitCoin.
We likely could come up with the money ourselves ( @manny and the $100 per dev). Iām less sure we could replicate the intangibles.
In my opinon:
I have read all this thread and heard everything Nader said about this partnership con Town Hall yesterday.
I support this partnership because I primarily think it is an early investment for the community. This will give us the possibility to have two excellent team members full-time paid (They do a superb job).
But, we need to define the tokenomics ASAP and vote on the distribution amount.
This is a unique opportunity for a community that only has a few months aboard.
@goldzulu youāve summed up all of my thoughts after reading the conversation.
Iām usually a real stickler for details, so I see myself in and really do empathise with all the concerns that have been (subjective follows >>) ārightlyā raised. However, I put my eyes-wide-open trust in the authors of the proposal, the values that are aligned and the relationships that have been forged.
I appreciate your comment about change being constant, @goldzulu, I think itās justified in this conversation. I donāt see this proposal as being a ārapid responseā issue, but I do believe momentum is important since other parties are involved, that are not, as you mentioned, @ryanharris, from VC money, or something equivalent. This is quality Layer Zero, Iād say. Just my two gweiā¦
I support the partnership with Gitcoin as it would bring financial help to pay the DAO costs - including the work of who is working full-time for it, D_D wouldnāt be possible without them - but most importantly, it will bring credibility to a newborn community that is gaining momentum, due to the partner reputation.
The self-funding approach (100$ per dev) would lack this cross-project validation aspect which is very important IMO at the early stages of any project to quickly be recognized as valid by the public.
However, I agree with @dabit3 that the DAO made a promise, and it must stand by that.
While Iām in favour of this proposal, I donāt understand that sentence.
As far as I understood, we are talking about what will be promised in this very thread right now.
Nobody had the authority to promise anything, thatās why weāre discussing it, right?
Or, from the other side, if someone, like Nader, for example, had the authority to promise Gitcoin 5%, we donāt have to discuss this.
When we heard about Gitcoinās proposal, we were all over our minds. It wasnāt anything close near what we would have expected. At the moment, we felt we were getting the better part of the deal.
We said yes.
And we moved on with that in mind. We grew more confident. And we were able to plan with that floor.
Now? Now we are in a different place. Now we feel theyāve got the better deal. (Of course they have, because we are awesome.)
There are lots of things we are learning. There is no playbook. I do think we can be more transparent about issues like this. And we can also improve at sharing the thought process.
I support this proposal. Gitcoin is THE foundation that is most aligned with our values & goals. They are pioneers of web3 public goods funding & creation. Having Gitcoin as a partner establishes instant legitimacy that cannot be valued.
I support allocating the proposed 5%. This gives Gitcoin incentive in Developer DAO and our partnership. Reducing the amount, reduces the incentive.
By establishing this partnership, the Developer DAO stands alongside the champions of Web3 public goods funding & creation.