Data Analysis for Season 14 Budget Proposals

[DisruptionJoe]

Before you begin:

This quick analysis was done by me with a little brainstorming and data gathering help. Our intention is for you to leave comments with a “wishlist” of visualizations and things you would like to know. Then our real analysts can create a seasonal report that will show all this info in a much better way.

Second thing, please be aware of the way two key terms are being used:

“Budgeted” is referring to the $USD value the workstream reports as their needs for the season. This does not include reserve amounts. It is used to show how much each workstream feels they need to execute on the deliverables listed on their proposal.

“Requested” refers to the amount the workstream requests to be removed from the treasury. Workstreams which either had explicitly asked for reserves or which did not use their full budget in the prior season may show a lower request amount because they already have reserves to roll over into this new season.

With that said, please review and comment for our team to compile better info for you next round! Here is some info:

If you don’t include the 2 potential new workstreams (Kernel & Kudos), the Season 14 total amount requested between all the workstreams is about the same as Season 13, but including the new workstreams does show a larger request this season.

Now if we separate the reserve amounts from the budgets that a workstream has requested for the season, we see without the new workstreams the budgeted amount for Season 14 is DOWN from season 13 overall.

Here is the change in how much was requested from Season 13 to Season 14. Notice that FDD had reserves explicitly held and Moonshot Collective had a very large budget which they did not use the majority of. Other workstreams like MMM and DAOops have substantially higher budget amounts AND this is their first season asking for reserves. (CSDO ratified that all structured workstreams would ask for up to 60 days of reserves.)

… and the change in each workstream’s seasonal budget from S13 to S14. Notice that FDD is slightly up in ask, while Moonshot is substantially down. MMM and DAOops are both up due to hiring and expansion similar to what FDD went through the last two seasons. When seeing this along with this being their first season requesting reserves, their requests look quite a bit higher than other streams.

Here is each workstreams requested amount from S13 to S14

… and this is each workstreams seasonal budget for seasons 13 & 14

This is each workstream’s season 14 budget next to the amount they are requesting. Note that workstreams with prior reserves (whether made explicit or not) are not requesting as much due to the rolling over of reserve funds.

Finally, here is each workstream’s season 14 budget as a pie chart. (If viewing from your phone, you may need to click the image to see the percentages.)

…to compare to last season.

Here are views requested by stewards to show how the season 14 overall budget relates to the total holdings of GitcoinDAO.

Happy voting!!!

Shout out to @Adebola @omnianalytics & @tjayrush for inspiration/requests & help. The FDD data team will be taking requests for what you would like to see on a season voters dashboard in the comments below.

[kyle]

Hey Joe -

I want to flag that some of your numbers are pretty far off here. The USD values are not consistent as your token values were likely normalized. I want to share more details, but want to flag for folks if they are starting to review.

Let me know if you feel I am off base in my comments here.

[DisruptionJoe]

We used $5.42 for Season 14 to normalize all workstreams at the same amount for Season 14 and $9.40 for Season 13 based on their budget requests on this forum.

Because all workstreams are following the same timing expectations, we felt normalizing for GTC price was reasonable. On the other hand, maybe CSDO should standardize using a USD total for the requests or setting a normalized value for inter-workstream comparisons in the future.

If exact amounts are off, this still seems to tell the story that I saw play out fairly accurately.

I’d be happy to update if given better information. Unfortunately, most workstreams didn’t use USD values and the normalizations seemed fair for all the workstreams which posted at the same time. dCompass and PGF in Season 13 are the ones which posted their requests at a different time which seem like they might warrent not normalizing the price.

[kyle]

@DisruptionJoe

Because all workstreams are following the same timing expectations, we felt normalizing for GTC price was reasonable

That wasn’t the case though in S13. And that has had a big impact on budgets.

Here are some numbers I pulled together, with links to my source sheets. I would love to see your source sheets so we can be more transparent about how we generate these charts.

@DisruptionJoe

this still seems to tell the story that I saw play out fairly accurately.

I’m not sure what story you feel this explains? FDD is a wild anomaly when comparing across seasons. It was the only workstream to have reserves approved in S13, and now looks like it is requesting much less in S14 simply because 1) it has reserves from S13 and 2) other workstreams are now playing catchup and requesting reserves for the first time.

I am really pretty saddened by this analysis and it makes me questions how else FDD has been counting and analyzing things. There is no consideration for price at transfer (we have the Tx’s we can look at), those with reserves and those without or the duration of budgetary timeline (PGF, Dao Ops having one extra month of operation spend against their S13 budgets).

Here is a quick graph showing how different things things actually look if we normalized for a few of the things I called out (to the best of my layman’s ability). Interestingly, most of the workstreams all have a very similar request amount with the exception of PGF. No judgement here - I have always encouraged workstreams to ask for what they need to be successful but to focus on actually being successful (stop over committing and under delivering when you get a blank check).

I am working on a few more graphs to share, but I am doing my best to make the data available linked above if someone wants to beat me to it.

edit Here are a few more (again using the spreadsheet linked above).
We can see that the reserves for FDD put it far above everyone else, but this was something we have normalized for S14. But without normalizing and excluding reserves, it paints a very different picture on where funding is going (in an unfair way).

[kyle]

Here is another chart showing an increase of 20% to budgets season over season (w/o new workstreams). I show we transferred ~$3.1MM worth of tokens to workstreams for S13 (some workstreams needed to cover an extra month as well, to normalize on the new schedule). Now, the S14 requests are a big increase for most workstreams as they are requesting reserves for the first time.

I want to be very clear about how I am defining “normalizing for reserves.” I am removing the amount of reserves each workstream has and showing what a “fully loaded” request to the DAO is to fund their workstream.

In some cases, some WSs have lots of funds remaining (they asked for too much last round, they asked for a 90 day reserves, they managed their treasury and took advantage of price appreciation, etc. - lots of great reasons for this!) and have been able to reduce their net new requests because of that. In some cases some WSs have no more reserves as they have spent the entirety of their budget (funding an extra month, hiring more aggressively, price deprecation without treasury management - also lots of good reasons!).

So, S14 is a pretty huge increase to the DAO treasury, but this is to be expected now that every workstream is asking for a 60 day reserve to be baked in. I would expect budget requests to decline in S15 much like FDD did in S14 given this change in modos operandi for workstreams.

[DisruptionJoe]

@kyle

Here are some numbers I pulled together, with links to my source sheets. I would love to see your source sheets so we can be more transparent about how we generate these charts.

I shared my source sheet with you, but here it is again: S13 & 14 compare - Google Sheets

As I look at your source sheet, your explanation seems to be using the price at time of transfer and not the requested amounts or the budget the workstreams set for themselves. If they didn’t use USD at all, it should be reasonable to assume the same USD price for all requests if they were made within a few days of each other.

Here is your source data which specifically shows “at the time of transfer”. The price of GTC went from around $9.40 which was used on the FDD budget request to around $6 when the S13 budgets were finally transferred in late March.

By using the "at the time of transfer rule, it would make the original requests for workstreams which requested in GTC (but some of which planned and made commitments in USD) seem smaller than they actually were.

Additionally, it would make the FDD budget seem larger because we specifically used a provision reading “The GTC total will be adjusted based on the current market value at the time this proposal is moved to Snapshot and to Tally. The vote will be to send $879,590 in GTC at the current price when moved to Tally or the 20 day moving average (whichever is lower).”

Now your arguments here gloss over that point and try to make it seem as though the “time of transfer” (which was mid march) is the valid way to view the workstream budgets for season 13 rather than the amount requested when the budget was written.

@kyle

FDD is a wild anomaly when comparing across seasons. It was the only workstream to have reserves approved in S13, and now looks like it is requesting much less in S14 simply because 1) it has reserves from S13 and 2) other workstreams are now playing catchup and requesting reserves for the first time.

Not sure why this matters when we also show how much we are requesting. Maybe you can share more on what more you want to see than the actual information about the amount being requested alongside the actual amount the workstream plans to use in the upcoming season.

The story I think this tells is that:

1. Yes, FDD was an anomoly
2. The other workstreams are catching up on a first season with reserves
3. Some of the other workstreams had reserves before, but weren’t explicit about requesting them
4. Leadership in CSDO is doing a good job of getting the workstreams to opt into a cadence and model that is easier for stewards to gain usable insights from.
5. Some of FDD’s ideas like having reserves and accounting for volitility by requesting the GTC amount based on when the proposal moves to Tally were pretty good ideas considering every other workstream is doing this now.

@kyle

I am really pretty saddened by this analysis and it makes me questions how else FDD has been counting and analyzing things.

I’m saddened by the way you framed this criticism. It is unreasonable.

@kyle

There is no consideration for price at transfer (we have the Tx’s we can look at)

Again, this has nothing to do with what the workstreams actually budgeted for their needs going into season 13 as the transfer didn’t happen until mid-late March.

Am I not understanding something here?

@kyle

those with reserves and those without or the duration of budgetary timeline (PGF, Dao Ops having one extra month of operation spend against their S13 budgets).

Actually, there was this consideration. The FDD season 13 numbers used the exact $ amounts which were explicitly accounting for, AND ASKING FOR, our reserves. The fact that other workstreams happened to have reserves available from their Season 13 budget request that they didn’t explicitly ask for does not mean that they had a smaller budget than was asked for because they needed to make it stretch. It could also mean they weren’t explicit about what exactly they were asking for.

@kyle

Here is a quick graph showing how different things things actually look if we normalized for a few of the things I called out (to the best of my layman’s ability). Interestingly, most of the workstreams all have a very similar request amount with the exception of PGF.

It seems as though you are considering what I call the “requested” amount to mean the amount they are asking for for their S14 budget. This is a definition issue.

I considered a “Season budget” to be what they say they need to execute in the season. I consider a “requested amount” to be the amount they are asking to extract from the treasury with the current budget proposal.

Did you see this differently? Are we talking past each other?

@kyle

We can see that the reserves for FDD put it far above everyone else, but this was something we have normalized for S14. But without normalizing and excluding reserves, it paints a very different picture on where funding is going (in an unfair way).

This is incorrect. The reserves were not the reason for FDD showing up this way. It is because of our clause to pay out the budget request using “The GTC total will be adjusted based on the current market value at the time this proposal is moved to Snapshot and to Tally. The vote will be to send $879,590 in GTC at the current price when moved to Tally or the 20 day moving average (whichever is lower).”

Now, I would consider using the price at the time of transfer as a way to determine what the workstream’s season 14 budget requests are, but I have no time machine.

i am gong to assume that the workstreams do have an exact $ value they are budgeting for considering most of them use USD in their breakdowns.

The data I used was from their S13 & S14 budget proposals normalized for the same GTC prices as said above.

@kyle

Yes, this graph you have provided is definitely painted in an unfair way. Thanks for noticing.

FDD did not request twice the reserve amount as what they requested for the season budget. Here is the link to the S13 FDD proposal [Proposal] FDD Workstream Season 13 Budget Request

And here is what it requested:

So basically neither of your FDD numbers are accurate, but there is proof that my argument about the price moving from $9.40 at time of proposal posting to $6 at time of transfer is true.

MC requested 130k GTC and PGF requested 100k GTC but you show $775k & 700k respectively. This looks approximately right considering the prices moved from $9.40 at the time of budget requests being posted to around $6 at time of transfer.

@kyle

Now, the S14 requests are a big increase for most workstreams as they are requesting reserves for the first time.

Again, this is not because the workstreams are requesting larger amounts. It is because you are using the price at time of transfer, which I will assume the workstreams didn’t use in forming their budget requests.

@kyle

S14 is a pretty huge increase to the DAO treasury, but this is to be expected now that every workstream is asking for a 60 day reserve to be baked in.

The requested amount is higher than the S14 cumulative budget to account for reserves, but the ask is approximately the same.

[kyle]

@DisruptionJoe

By using the "at the time of transfer rule, it would make the original requests for workstreams which requested in GTC (but some of which planned and made commitments in USD) seem smaller than they actually were.

hmm, it may not matter much IMO. Those workstreams were able to accomplish what they set out to do with less funds. FDD was the only workstream to peg to USD and not ride the price down. In the end, this didnt have an impact on S13 performance (that I am aware of), but it helps shed a light on why some folks have no reserves and why some have large reserves (which I address in my post).

@DisruptionJoe

is the valid way to view the workstream budgets for season 13

Isn’t this accurate though? It’s like looking at budgeted versus actual. IMO, it really doesnt matter. I am merely trying to be more transparent and account for the anomalies. I dont think people should scorn FDD for the approach used in S13.

@DisruptionJoe

So basically neither of your FDD numbers are accurate, but there is proof that my argument about the price moving from $9.40 at time of proposal posting to $6 at time of transfer is true.

Help me update my numbers its why I shared the sheet and data to start. I feel like we are debating nuances that don’t really matter. I am not implying FDD did anything wrong, or was overly funded, etc. My goal in showcasing the data in the way I am is to highlight why some folks are requesting what seems like large increases compared to last season and others aren’t. The concern I posted was that the initial analysis and charts you are using are incredibly cursory and don’t go into detail and explain what is actually happening. Saying the budget being requested is about the same is wrong.
Showing FDD & MSC are dramatically reducing their budget requests without offering details as to why is misleading (MSC asked for way too much and FDD used the provision to request market price instead of sticking with their original proposal like every other workstream).

All and all, I just want to be sure folks understand that S13 was anomalous for FDD (which we understood and overcame), S14 will be anomalous for most workstreams (and FDD for the inverse reasons), and that by S15 we should see things calm down is the point I am trying to convey.

I apologize if my criticism were unfair of the analysis you/FDD is doing more broadly. There have been a lot of great analysis come from you/FDD in the past.

PS. I hate pie charts…

[DisruptionJoe]

@kyle

My goal in showcasing the data in the way I am is to highlight why some folks are requesting what seems like large increases compared to last season and others aren’t. The concern I posted was that the initial analysis and charts you are using are incredibly cursory and don’t go into detail and explain what is actually happening. Saying the budget being requested is about the same is wrong.

The amounts requested and budgeted are right there on the season 13 and season 14 budget proposals for anyone to double check. It is not an opinion.

@kyle

Showing FDD & MSC are dramatically reducing their budget requests without offering details as to why is misleading (MSC asked for way too much and FDD used the provision to request market price instead of sticking with their original proposal like every other workstream).

I had included a note about the reserves being the reason for this, but I’ve updated the wording above to be much more clear about this point. I hope it helps.