@owocki thanks for the visionary work. When you stepped back from the DAO it left a hole in visionary thinking that I hope Gitcoin will consider when recruiting new leaders.
Couple things I suspect we agree on:
- Centralization is likely appropriate for start ups with strong leadership but w/o PMF
- The path from centralization to decentralization is a progressive spectrum
- A decentralized state is still going to take iterations to get right
- We need more thought leadership (like your post) about possible decentralized forms
- Even if we are not sure exactly what the end state is, we should deliberately move towards it.
We might not agree on the following:
- Gitcoin (like most of web3) has a highly centralized decision making structure
- The current centralization at Gitcoin does not seem to be serving Gitcoin particularly well
- Gitcoin should take deliberate (and low risk) steps to continue the journey towards decentralization
To that end - here are a couple low risk steps the DAO can take to deliberately move towards decentralization:
- Articulate a plan to move “approval” away from CSDO & the foundation according to the DACI
- Reduce individual voting influence (delegation) to no more than 2.5% of a typical vote
- Default to quadratic voting on snapshot, limit non-QV to exceptions
I suspect larger delegates may not be crazy about these ideas - but as an investor and steward, if I look at ETH/GTC price action, Gitcoin is not winning. And it might be time to do something about it.