Your understanding of FDDâs role in solving unsolved research problems which existentially affect Gitcoinâs future is interesting to me. You seem to be saying on one side that we, Gitcoin, need to focus on creating a decentralized protocol. That there is no future value for Gitcoin if we donât decentralize the system and give the governance token more utility in that process.
FDD is doing that with both of our areas of responsibility, but your answer is âYou, me, Kevin and Blockscience could do it for lessâ.
From the beginning, the reason for having a workstream for FDD was to push the control of the subjective decisions out of the hands of a few⌠you me kevin
We take that seriously and are building to allow larger numbers of participants.
Sybil Detection DAO - On one hand you are saying we need to find ways to provide upside back to the DAO. On the other hand, you see a (lightly) validated idea that simply needs execution to take a solution we are using which can be generalized for all of web 3 and think this is simply education. The wild thing is that while we would provide the digital infrastructure which would be required for online democracies to work, we would also benefit from better data into our system. Very positive sum.
Cutting most of evolution - Which part of evolution do you think is least needed?
- Contributors knowing when and how to participate?
- Us understanding where are strengths and weaknesses are and continually improving?
- Our data collection and aggregation that allows us to be data driven?
- Our internal and external communication of what we are doing so we are clear between ourselves and you and other stewards understand our work? (This one is new, but the explanation to fishbiscuit above discusses relevant details)
- Our paying contributors on time?
- Our paying contributors for the roles DAOops has requested we create?
If we had wanted DAO ops to run everything and control all the decision making, hiring, and payment decisions along with assessing every workstreamâs competency, then we probably should have made a company, not a DAO.
That is a little facetious.
I do want to hand over responsibility for some of these items as we have done with others in the past, but I donât believe the DAOops workstream has advanced to the level to be able to fully serve our needs. Reasons:
- After 6 months we still donât have a metric for âwhat is a successful onboard to gitcoinDAO?â
- Our peer review process supplied to us was basically telling us to walk all our contributors through copying a google form with the right settings and sending it out. This handed us more work that we needed to pay our contributors to do rather than providing a service.
- We didnât include the $120k for travel expenses the CSDO passed! ($120k coming from the Moonshot proposal)
They will get there, and the way we will do that is by other workstreams, FDD included, developing their own systems. We allow the successful norms to emerge and then DAOops can facilitate the operations which we all opt in to sharing.
What you donât explicitly say here is that by eliminating FDDs operations and structure, you are effectively asking for all hiring, decision making, and information gathering and insights to be provided by DAOops.
Can you say more here?
This is ridiculous! Quadratic funding (and most other funding mechanisms one might use in grants 2.0) does not work without sybil resistance. Second, if you want a decentralized protocol that improves democracy and allows for better allocation of resources you HAVE TO provide a decentralized way to source the inputs to the system.
Sybil detection is not the only way to do this. Catalyst is working on mechanism design solutions for grants 2.0. Either way, if the content moderation (both users/sybil and issues/grants) for online democracies works like what you had at Twitter, then we are not building for this community.
This work from our rewards modeling crew in GIA went fairly unnoticed, but it is essentially the point of what FDD needs to do. We need to understand how we can create trusted outcomes via engineering good systems, then minimize the cost to be efficient, but not so efficient that the system centralizes.
This will be used to optimize and decentralize the inputs to the sybil pipeline along with itâs original intention of optimizing the grant review mechanism so that ANY community can provide community curation rather than self curation. We are going to be able to offer legitimacy, credible neutrality, and sustainability AT SCALE if we are successful.
If that isnât directly in benefit of Gitcoin, I donât know what is.
You obviously see this as an expense and I see it as an investment that also happens to make us better. Gitcoin would own a substantial share of these protocols to govern and participate in their growth. Think aqueducts and ownership. (Kinda like owning a rental property. You benefit from the investment appreciation and cashflow.)
By understanding the governance for a new Sybil Detection DAO, we can help Gitcoin launch multiple subDAO microservice protocols which will be legitimate public goods as digital infrastructure enabling online democracies.
By building out Sybil Detection DAO, we gain data partners which need to be rewarded for providing us with data that makes our detection efforts better.
By building out new tools like Ethelo for grant reviews, we enable the community to make eligibility decisions. We provide a way for the subjectivity inherent in decisions to be owned and distributed in the community, not a delegated authority.
Those werenât the âgood ole daysâ. Those days sucked. I do not want to âMake Gitcoin Great Againâ!
We were unable to innovate or really even understand what was happening. We were not able to assess if the things we worked on were the most relevant. This type of thinking is what led us to the previous dGrants issues. It led us to not decoupling the eth and platform creating a ton of confusion and unhappy users (who think FDD is messing up but not realizing we made design decisions that made it impossible to be logically consistent)
The suggestion that FDD is here for itself and not the community is simply untrue. We are innovating to find solutions. Perhaps if you didnât ask us to âslim downâ and not look at the overall threats to the DAO, we would have rang a louder alarm about the need for treasury management back when we started in November.
If we were to line up the importance of our work, it would probably fall under PGF and the yet to come GPC, but right up there with them. Heck, I remember the good ole days where I was hired for growth but we couldnât get the data needed to make that work and had a major gap in operations which I ended up filling. Back then we didnât need ANY marketing. (Iâm absolutely not saying we donât need MMM, Iâm just pointing out the double standard in the logic.)