I very much agree with having some parameters on DAO-wide budget – but will also add that today’s stewards call reinforced for me that we need to get bigger picture thinking on financial sustainability than just “what is our budget”.
To me, the existential question of “how does Gitcoin live on in perpetuity?” is still very much outstanding.
The token price – the DAO’s lone source of funding, beyond its small pool of stables – has gone down by >75% this year, and we are only just entering a bear market in which it’s not unfathomable to imagine that Governance Tokens, as a construct, could become all but obliterated.
Some thoughts:
-
There is no precedent for any company, let alone a DAO, to live off appreciation of its perceived value while having no plan to bring in meaningful revenue. My impression is that the future ability to live off token utility & resulting demand alone is the default assumption DAO folks are working under when it comes to Gitcoin’s future. I think we need to get real here – while it’s certainly possible, it’s a monumental & unprecedented feat, but is being taken as a given. What would need to be true for the utility ideas @kyle lays out here to play out, and what does the timeline look like? What are the risks? If the token drops by another 75%, what is the plan?
-
Alternatively, is Gitcoin a public good and should Gitcoin itself be receiving grant funding (e.g., from corporations, from governments even) to cover its operating expenses?
-
Alternatively yet, is there any viable path to Gitcoin making sufficient revenue to cover its opex (or even a portion of its opex) and not needing to pull from the treasury so much?
To me, these are the types of questions we need to be boldly & confidently declaring a unified view on as Stewards & Workstream Leads. Not having a clear plan here is the biggest thing that keeps me up at night regarding Gitcoin’s future.