I really appreciate this post, and conversation. Having been in ConsenSys, Gitcoin Holdings and now the DAO and Foundation It has been a tremendous learning on how to capitalize on momentum, and eating when there is food on the table. Perhaps Kevin and I are too close for me to be objective, but I too have observed a similar trend to what @owocki describes below. Gas prices alone have shown the change in interest in NFTs, but Eth’s price is still holding steady while Defi 2.0 and lending options are starting to gain traction. The (relatively) micro waves will likely offer more stability, but also offer some opportunities (for financial stability).
I am optimistic that as solutions (new protocols for untapped market problems) come online we will continue to see a tide that raises all boats. There was a recent explosion in L2s, but with gas prices much cheaper, I wonder if we will already see consolidation in the space (like we did with NFT marketplaces, and Defi platforms). The rate in which an explosion of options is created, then a contraction seems to be accelerating. The oscillations are getting smaller. stability is forming (at a macro level).
I want to name that this is me ^^. I don’t have experience from the last 5 years in the space, and this bring both advantages and disadvantages. I am more open to risk, I am more familiar with how to scale and grow teams & markets. I am less versed in “being a cockroach to survive.” I am hopeful that with partnership from those who have been here for years, and wisdom from my Web2 growth days we can forge an even keel approach that is tempered in learning from a diverse range of experiences.
As someone who is now leading the Gitcoin Foundation, the sustainability of our Mission - the DAO’s mission… Gitcoin’s Mission - is what keeps me up at night. It is the reason I am critical of budgets and how we are spending our treasury. It is why I am critical of the impact Workstreams have… the impact we are able to sustain, and the progress we need to continue to strive for. Though I have been only part of this team for a year and a half, the continued success of our collaboration and impact feels like the most important thing.
We are doing a few things to sustain Gitcoin in the short term (treasury diversification, better budgeting practices), but I fear we have not yet done the analysis on which workstreams are delivering the impact we need to propel ourselves prudently into the future (bear or bull).
As organizations scale, planning cycles need to be more thoughtful, the horizon in which we aim teams toward needs to be further into the distance, more ambitious. When I was at Twitter, I watched dozens of failed acquisitions happen because we had an arguably short sighted vision of “serving the world’s public conversation” (or just copy facebook for a while there 
)… having a vision of “serving the world’s interactions” would have delivered that same purpose (serving the public conversation) but expanded our horizon and given executives more ability to grow into a technology company, instead of a single product company (imagine if Twitter hadn’t fumbled Vine… the first TikTok). Google, Amazon, Microsoft, Facebook (kinda) all made the leap to technology company. Twitter, Snapchat, Now even Netflix are realizing they missed the mark of that goal. Software will continue to eat the world.
For Gitcoin we have talked about the DAO sandwich:
- Impact DAO (We are here today, with grants and Public Goods funding)
- Protocol DAO (We planted seeds with Coordination Party Kit, now Grants 2.0 and soon the Registry, perhaps even dCompass, Kudos)
- Investment DAO (though we have made a couple investments to date, Gitcoin has an incredible advantage in discovering top teams, projects and protocols ahead of the market based on our communities participation in Grants rounds)
One of the questions that keeps me up at night is, how do we ensure we maintain momentum and our growing impact (#1 from above), while also investing heavily in #2 (Protocol advancements). While not losing sight of our goal to fund much of the world’s public goods (investments made by us today pay forward the funding for future projects - Aqueducts, commitments to public goods funding, etc.)
Workstream leads should be thinking about scenario plans for continued growth, and then contraction. The rigor that goes into that evaluation is often helpful, but can be very time consuming. I get the sense we are just starting to hit a tipping point where most WS leads are now spending more time “parenting the DAO” than they are running their workstream. CSDO has formed as the leadership team of the DAO (it is the workstream leads across the DAO, so it makes sense). But, there is no formal budget for these leadership roles. These Leads are doing double duty, running the DAO and their Workstreams. It means there is often less planning at both levels (for the whole DAO and for their workstreams).
I suspect we will see some proposals to determine how best to care and nurture both the DAO and the workstreams in the near future.
To Kevin’s questions, we have some key milestones ahead of us that IMO will ensure we are not stopped short in our quest to build and fund public goods:
- Finish up our transfer of assets from Holdings to ensure the DAO (foundation) can stand on its own
- Execute on our treasury diversification and ensure we have stability in our treasury (perhaps hire a fractional CFO type to guide us here as well)
- Deliver on core Protocols (Grants 2.0 is the most important to start)
These things need to happen while we also come together as a DAO, and strengthen how we work together, how we govern, how we make policy and how we encourage more participation in our mission.
Outlining novel plans for different scenarios is a great idea, and something I would love to continue to explore with CSDO and the DAO as a whole.