And I agree that power is pretty concentrated currently, but we’re in a better spot in my opinion because those stewards are rather benevolent and open to outsider opinions. I also think that by my observations and by the things you have pointed out, GTC right now is closer to a worker coop that listens to community input, as opposed to a DAO governed by their community.
I’m curious about your second point.
What do you think the difference is between the way the internal contributors view Gitcoin and the way GTC holders (and perhaps other stakeholders) view Gitcoin?
This situation also gives me pause. Recently, I was reading in another forum how a protocol suggested pulling a major decision away from contributors and move it to the tokenholders - declaring it a win for “decentralization”. In reality, it took what was a weighted vote of 30 contributors and put it in the hands of about five whales.
I am thinking about how to measure decentralization - not because I am making a value decision on if the current weighting or “power” is right, but because sometimes it is helpful to put your finger on a map and say “we are here”. Thank you @a33titude for the prompt.
From spending a lot of time researching on the forum, here are my observations:
Insiders seem to have a lot more context than GTC holders (eg there is a 2023 roadmap that has not been made public yet). In a DAO without these information asymmetries there would be no non-public context because all the contributors work in public.
Insiders have a lot more ability to navigate the DAO’s resources than outsiders. Theres a lot of info that isnt listed on the gitcoin.co navigation. For example , I only found docs.passport.gitcoin.co and showcase.passport.gitcoin.co bc I asked a dev friend to do some diligence on Gitcoin with me. How do I spin up a Grants instance? Where are the docs for it? Why aren’t these resources accessible in the main nav?
From this post series it seems there is friction between insiders who want higher compensation, whereas some GTC holders who want to be more frugal or want to see more progress for the GTC given before giving higher compensation.
There seems to be a higher sense of urgency to turn around the declining token price from outside GTC holders than from insiders.
There is generally a lot of visioning and thoughtleadering that goes on on the gov forums, but not a lot of execution visible. How is the DAO doing against it’s purpose and essential intents? Against it’s competitors? I have no idea, insiders don’t publish that information - so thats why I do here and here.
For insiders, GTC Holders are seen as dispensable whereas insiders are not. For GTC Holders, there is no alternative to just going along with insiders. There is no competition or market for DAO leadership.
Want an alternative approach to software development? Too bad, you’re stuck with GPC and it’s leadership.
Want an alternative approach to fraud defense? Too bad, you’re stuck with FDD and it’s leadership.
Want an alternative approach to marketing? Too bad, you’re stuck with MMM and it’s leadership.
Want an alternative approach to partnerships? Too bad, you’re stuck with PGF and it’s leadership.
Want an alternative approach to DAO Operations? Too bad, you’re stuck with DAO-OPS and it’s leadership.
I very much appreciate you raising these two cases for Gitcoin and GTC. I’m not a GTC holder (yet) but I am a grateful beneficiary of grants via the Gitcoin and want to support the success of this community.
I am very curious to know why Gitcoin doesn’t just introduce fees for all grants distributed via the protocol?
It seems like the most logical thing to do from a business perspective. As a grant recipient (and a donor) I would be much happier if I knew Gitcoin had a sustainable business model and were capturing some of the value that they create.
Is there any public-facing discussion on this matter?
A small critique: Tally is really a formality within the gitcoin governance process. Voting really occurs on Snapshot and then Stewards move that vote on-chain (through Tally) according to the decision produced by Snapshot. So the voting weight in reality might be different (but maybe not). Either way, there are a few major delegates that have a lot of sway in voting, which is a problem. We’re in agreement on that.
For the rest of what you said here, I definitely agree. I think the internal contributors are realizing what you are describing and trying harder, but in my opinion, it is ridiculously hard to get context within the GitcoinDAO, which does not bode well for a community-governed project. I think part of the conflict as well is that it is unclear what the decision-making jurisdiction is of the core contributors (CSDO and the Workstreams), and what is under the jurisdiction of the community (Steward Council, Stewards, Token holders, non-holding community members).
If you (or anyone else) are interested, I think creating a guide on where to find this context (if it is known, or getting it from internal contributors if it isn’t) would be a worthy project that I’d want to help out with. Feel free to send a message to me on here or on discord if you want to talk about this.
Information flows are some of the hardest things to get right at scale ( especially in a distributed working environment). This is not just a problem for Gitcoin but for pretty much all DAOs in general. I’ve yet to see anything close to a perfect knowledge management system deployed in Web3 but I think this is an area where GitcoinDAO could experiment and lead. Getting greater community awareness around a single, well-maintained KMS could go a long way to helping people easily self-serve on getting up to speed on all things Gitcoin.
You’re totally right. This work is not happening here in the forum. A lot is happening in CSDO, or collaboration channels in Discord. The Discord roles for these channels appear to be set to DAO-Core (about 90 folks), so again, confirmation that this is the DAO in-group that’s workshopping much of this material that is then presented on the forum mostly for ratification.
Given you’re across the current attempts that are being made to broadcast the in-group work as it happens (CSDO Notes, etc.) and you’re still feeling like Gitcoin is operating like a black box, I think you’re finding the best way to get involved and inject debate into this process with your posts here.
This feels somewhat unsatisfying, and I’d like to see us do better to source input from GTC holders like yourself.
I can see 2 options:
Find ways to bring folks like yourself into the more real-time work that CSDO and the DAO-Core team are doing. These could be via the existing Community Calls or special open sessions with the CSDO.
Bring some of the CSDO work into the forums (this is more normal for DAOs after all) via a more standard GIP-### style proposal system.
I am transparency / decentralize maxi and I have come to see both as a journey - which I am not sure any DAO has gotten quite right just yet. But hey, DAOs all still a new experiment so I tend to dial back my natural impatience and nudge every chance I get.
Recall that we do spend quite some time developing our Gitcoin Steward network where the stewards are given monthly updates, do deep dive critiques on draft budgets, and ask questions direct to workstream leaders. Also a feature of that meeting is open air time where a steward can ask any pending questions they like. We also turn to those same stewards to vote on proposals and help determine the future of Gitcoin.
Becoming a steward is open to every(single)person and we welcome anyone with (or without) GTC. We strive to make that venue as helpful as possible to all stewards - but as said, we are on a journey and we still have lots to learn.
This is a wonderfully robust discussion.
So many erudite and nuanced perspectives.
This discussion makes me think of a podcast I heard recently - the TL;DR being that DAOs should be seen as startups, benefiting from a lean structure, that can then mature into decentralization.
Bottomline - Gitcoin is one of the most, if not the most, successful org Web3 has. So… fascinating to learn about the innerworkings. Thank you for this thread.
Peace, Happiness & Prosperity to All You/ Us Public Gooders in 2023 & beyond!!
It definately has potential. But I think that DAOs like ENS and Uniswap and Maker are more mature & successful.
I think this is important to clarify.
Looks like you took yourself up on your own offer!
I avoided signing up as a steward because I was not sure I would have time. But I’m not at least a couple dozen hours into evaluating Gitcoin. So maybe I should dive in and sign up.
Other GTC holders might not have the time to do the research I did. So I hope that every time these questions get asked and answered it gets a little easier to understand GTC on lesser time
There is no requirement of time to be a Steward. Some really dig in and are recognized via a nomination to join the Steward Council as a web3 leader and advisor for Gitcoin, others casually join the update calls once per month to ask questions to get the early updates on things like branding, strategic plans, budget and protocol updates. Others are recognized for their thoughtful input and are awarded greater influence via delegated GTC from holders who do not have time to participate in the governance process, but who still want to put their GTC to work.
We do strive to get better at transparency - for an example this subject was discussed yesterday (01.03) in the CSDO meeting here - CSDO Ops 01/03 but one of the existing ways we disseminate information, help people connect and build context while we strive for decentralization is via our Stewards and our monthly Steward Circle meetings. We have a big tent, and interested parties are all invited to join.
I think the biggest thing that we are missing in a mutual grants focus is that we have workstreams currently thinking about how to create revenue, but no plan on how to invest in their unique knowledge.
Workstreams which have been efficient and properly managed their treasury would be great candidates for building for profit businesses on top of the protocol.
The current expectation is that revenue from a workstream should go to the DAO treasury, but a less considered option is that it could be kept by the workstream and contractually seen as a SAFE/SAFT type investment allowing the workstream to spin out a subDAO or corp that is profitable AND dependent on grants/project/passport protocols.
Why is this better? At the end of the day, for-profit businesses using the protocol will have incentive to pay for the sustainability of the protocol. Giving the DAO more runway doesn’t have the same effect.
Imagine we are building a city. We want people to move in, but there are no grocery stores or gas stations. We could subsidize the businesses to startup when they will be at a loss, but hoping more people will move in when the necessary services are there. My suggestion is that we encourage our workstreams to spin out for profit businesses.
If we can create a model to successfully spin out for profit businesses, we will:
Extend runway by having less contributor salaries in the DAO. Workstreams are incentivized to get their own revenue and become sustainable.
Use SAFE/SAFT investment to keep stake in ventures (We could sell this if it discourages competition in the future)
Shift GitcoinDAO internal public goods funding to be fully governed by GTC holders. As workstreams spin out they create an aqueduct to partially fund the main program and partially fund GitcoinDAO specific needs.
Protocol fees could go back to the DAO treasury or to an aqueduct which drives continuous GTC token holders decisions on the program and which protocol public goods to fund. It doesn’t have to be that no revenue goes back to DAO treasury, just that workstream generated revenue could be used as investment rather than extended runway. Think about it, if we need the extended runway cause there aren’t for-profit businesses using it already, we probably already lost…
Most importantly, we need to reset our essential intents ASAP. They weren’t designed for staying forever. They should be updated every 6 months or so. This conversation has a little more of my thoughts on the essential intents. November CSDO Digest - #13 by DisruptionJoe
This feels a lot like a Mutual Grant, which I just learned has been shelved. It sounds like some parts of Gitcoin have their foot on the gas + some have it on the brake
In this scenario, what happens to the $2.4 million* that Gitcoin has already put into a workstream like FDD? Is that part of the SAFE/SAFT?
*estimating this amount $400k/quarter for 6 quarters. $400k * 6 = $2.4 million [but the actual amount may be different as the budgets have fluctuated a lot]
Has the DAO done a detailed analysis of GTC Utility and financial sustainability they can share? This thread is all over the place.
I don’t see anyone in the DAO advocating for this except you. Is there broad consensus around this in the DAO and if so when is it happening?
Yes. However, the mutual grants that were considered were totally new startups or DAOs (DeveloperDAO, PrimeDAO, Wonderverse) or exchange of governance and holdings (Radical). My thinking is that we didn’t subsidize businesses the users of the protocol would need like:
a good way to scale grant reviews
a way to benefit from economies of scale in grant reviews
an evaluation ecosystem for grant or user reviews
an appeals insurance for users and grants
freemium sybil defense with upgraded features
Which brings to the next point:
I don’t think it is about the $$$ already given, though I’m sure some disagree. i think it is about the following scenarios
a workstream manages their treasury well and makes profit
a workstream applies for a grant outside of gitcoin that overlaps with gitcoin work
a workstream finds and sells revenue generating services
Instead of returning these to the DAO treasury, these funds should be the future investment. Basically, anything you make while the DAO is still subsidizing your business. That said, I think workstreams should try to spin out profit generators with their knowledge and expertise, but the workstreams may still exist until their core problem is solved.
Not that I know of for GTC utility. There are a few good ideas and some modeling for specific ideas, but it isn’t like we aren’t sharing them publicly… they are just ideas between some people that haven’t gained traction to the level of publicly sharing. Some even come from supporters, but not contributors. I’m comfortable sharing half-baked ideas, but not everyone is.
I know there are others. CSDO has been putting it off the last couple months, but I believe we have this on the schedule to address soon. And like last time, it will be debated on the forum.
Thanks for your response. I’m not sure I understand all of your points… I will wait until these ideas make it into proposals before commenting further!
Very interesting read.
I am also a fan of Gitcoin. I hold GTC, read the Digest, contribute to other projects, and participate as grantee.
I am grateful for Gitcoin and the thoughtful team that has enabled so much impact to be achieved.
That said.
There’s a step back to give to understand what does value mean. If we are here for speculating with the economic return GTC can provide to holders, then it’s the path ahead.
But what if value is something different?
Honest questions, I’d appreciate getting answers from others:
Does Gitcoin need to speculate with GTC to survive? Can Gitcoin maintain itself with other ways, such as a fee for the stewarding and promotion of funding campaigns, or working group units that compete and collaborate to deliver value to the ecosystem?
A blessed 2023 for all you champs who are using your living time to do good in the world.
I also want to +1 this. Creating speculative value around our governance token (GTC) I think is very dangerous. We should look towards other sources of revenue.
Thank you for taking the time to write this post. I think you have an excellent view on things and I personally loved the way you “zoomed in” on some issues like 3, while also “zooming out” on others like 4.
Idk why my intuition tells me that we will have a big positive surprise this year in store for GTC. I think that the team didn’t want 2 attach a use case for GTC, just to create utility in a kinda “forced” and web2ish way.
My view is that there are 3 scenarios that could take place:
Extended bear market in which GTC could go as low as 0.1$
Mixed sentiment market, meaning that the bears and bulls will fight until the next halving (2024) in which case GTC could go to 0.25-0.75 $ range.
Pseudo bull market, GTC goes over 2$
GTC use case is not an easy one, but I’m sure that the contributors, WS leads, SC and stewards(like me) are actively strategizing, thinking, etc
This is very concise!