No. There was some code refactoring for performance but no substantial updates to the code. Although we did increase our number of human evaluations up to 6,000 which lets us know that our statistical validation of the model is more accurate.
There are 18 listed here in the budget request details. This is 3 top level outcomes with nested OKRs for outcomes owned by individual squads (each of which could grow to be it’s own subdao).
The average top level goal has an “essential intent” for the “subdao” which is a guiding statement for the next 12 - 18 months. For example, Grants Investigation agency has an essential intent of “Increasing legitimacy and transparency in the grant eligibility processes”. This has 3 metrics which can tell us if we are improving quarter to quarter. Both the essential intent and these metrics will be reviewed each quarter to determine if the direction is still appropriate.
Then, within the Grants Investigation Agency, there are 5 outcomes that bubbled up from our strategy sessions. Each of these outcomes has a driver. They selected their KRs for us to measure their success over the next 90 days.
Each of these subdaos (grants, sybil, ops) easily has a 2 pizza team. The core of each is small with maybe 6-10 key contributors. The reason FDD has such large contributor numbers is because we have the human evaluations and grants reviews which pay a large number of people relatively small amounts.
FDD basically has 3 subdaos each with 3 source council members (Full time) and maybe 3-4 part time contributors. This seems the same to me. I think our difference is that we structured in a way that contributors that participate in any one of the 3 subdaos can easily bounce between the 3.
I think the Peter Pan one is basically what we mimic and are moving to as seen in our roadmap of progressive decentralization. I think it is also important to understand that this can be fractal.
Why else are we here? Governments and institutions no longer pay for the moonshots and R/D needed for public infrastructure. A sybil defense network is a base level public good for the metaverse. It’s like having a fire dept. Unless your town is super small, you need one. Additionally, all the advancements made by the big ones will be open source and free for the smaller town fire departments to build upon.
In the modular, extendable, plug-in architecture we are discussing for dGrants with aqueducts driving the donations, defending the legitimacy and credible neutrality of a round through sybil detection and grant curation is the most likely reason any org will have to create an aqueduct next to the goodness of their collective hearts.
Less abstract - Yes, we are moving all the blockscience work to be run by the DAO. Yes, we are funding 2 distinct models right now. Yes, we need them if we want to scale. One is entirely focused on being the main one we operationalize during the round. The other is figuring out how to get unknown community contributors to be able to participate at various access levels to collaboratively build and update the features and eventually the model itself.
Sure, we could save money by not running these in parallel, but why would we do that? We are building public goods that the world needs. It is public infrastructure that won’t get funded anywhere else which will enable a cambrian explosion of innovation in how we allocate resources.
The idea that we should “cut the fat” because we CAN run the operations on a smaller budget rather than take the moonshot that could solve the problem properly is the mindset and incentive model that drove web 2 to be extractive. imho. We, Gitcoin, users and stakeholders are here to build a better way.
Once this is built, the business model is not that of web 2. (Finding customers and extraction)
The business model is that the matching pool will grow through aqueducts and donations which choose Gitcoin because we can offer the turn key services with legitimacy.
The treasury will grow via more people recognizing our values and seeing that groups like FDD, Moonshot, PGF, etc deliver. We turn their capital into public good. They can either donate and lose their capital or they can participate by holding GTC and letting the DAO catalyze their capital into impact.
The gitcoin stakeholders will grow as the many subdaos mature. Some will have customers, some will need governance, some will find their role being closer to knowing how to solve problems rather than solving problems.
https://gov.gitcoin.co/t/the-gitcoin-anti-sybil-flywheel/9417
Yes it is. The mandate of FDD is to defend Gitcoin. When Gitcoin no longer needs this service, or doesn’t want it from us, then it should simply dissappear. However, the people who are participating as contributors can continue to organize.
I’ve been told we shouldn’t be looking for customers or thinking about our own business models in the past, but it seems like the thinking around that is coming around the corner now. (Probably, because it is inevitable for every subdao)
Sybil detection across web 3 will require it’s own incentive mechanism at some point rather than relying on Gitcoin funding it. How do we get that conversation started? (One of our sybil outcomes is to get buy in from community partners to share data for features in a community data lake)
Yes. We did consider it and still are considering it. (It says that further down in the tl;dr.) Staking and any incentive design choice can have 2nd and 3rd order effects we might not foresee. Therefore, we have been doing the research to know that we are making the best decisions we can before making them.
Yes. We have done the reserves every budget and explain in the budget that part of our work is mission critical and we don’t want to be unable to perform due to political hiccups or other unknown issues that might come up. I don’t think a 6 month budget, especially after having done this and not only been responsible, but made gains ($70k) through treasury management. (Only GTC, Eth, stables)
There is one person who was moved to DAOops who is getting a weekly amount from this stream. How many streams can you assign to that person without increasing their pay?
Are there others?
Exactly what part of the Ground Control budget is duplicative? I’ll list them all here to make it easier to discuss. (Format = Outcome Name (Outcome owner) | S13 Outcome Budget Total = % of FDD S13 Total Budget)
Payments (Joe) | $6.5k = 1.1%
Contributors are paid on-time and understand how their payments work
This $500/wk is going to the person handling all of FDD payments.
FDD OS (Joe) | $10k = 1.7%
Contributors all have a voice in a self managing system
We need someone to drive the operationalizing of having this system. Initial setup and organization first. Tracking steps and creating runbooks for it to work. Plus some expert guidance and help here and there.
Contributor UX (SirL) | $14k = 2.3%
Contributors understand their role, responsibilities, know how to show up and put a participation “Level Required” effort toward the mission
This is NOT duplicative to the GitcoinDAO onboarding as FDD has certain info, needs, and rituals we have with our contributors. Learnings from FDD have been brought into other streams before too.
Mandate Delivery (Kish) | $14k = 2.5%
FDD effectiveness in delivering on its mandate is easy to communicate
FDD needs to know how well its outcome owners are performing and how well it is doing on delivering it’s mandate. If the models we create work, then the rest of the DAO could use them
Contributor CAP (Waka) | $4k = 0.7%
Model and simulation is available to analyze collective decision outcome variations
For us to launch bottoms up initiatives, this is critical info.
Data Storage Layer (Nollied) | $22k = 3.7%
Contributors can easily access data without compromising security
I think this one is obvious, it would probably spin off to DAOops soon, but FDD needs it and DAOops didn’t include it in their budget nor did they start a conversation with us about it. We can’t just not perform our core function because another stream “should” own the work.
Data Analytics (Omni) | $10k = 1.7%
Collect and repurpose data analysis for continuous insights
Right now we are doing a lot of one-off analysis that get used once and then thrown out. Kevin had a bounty for data analysis on grants. We could take the great code people write and collect it to setup dashboards to run a data report after every round with the same set of insights people found in the bounty rather than look at it once and forget it.
Overall, I don’t see anything overlapping except the one person who we should discuss in the payments.
I would not deny the reserves. In fact, I’d recommend that every workstream participating in CSDO guidelines add reserves to their budgets.
There are two problems here. Staking solves one of them, GIA software solves another.
Staking, how might we raise the cost of fraud for registering sybil grants? or HMW decrease likelihood of sybil attackers making new grants?
GIA software, how might we dynamically let communities determine and update the inclusion criteria for an ecosystem, cause, or round, and then curate grants according to the dynamic policy? or HMW allow self curation of criteria and grants by the community?
This is our plan going forward. However, we may want to continue working with Blockscience in other ways.
Awesome. We are very excited to do this.
I appreciate your feedback but for reasons listed above I don’t agree. Our defense budget is rising by 34% while the round totals are rising at 50-100%. We are also still early and investing in a better future. Your recommendation seems to be to cut all the innovation and only fund the items needed to operationally run a round.
I think a good goal for FDD is to continue to lower our rate of budget growth. Last round was 50%, this one 34%. To do this while supporting defense of Gitcoin Grants which is growing at an exponential pace seems to be a good place to be.
I’d encourage stewards to look at what we set out to do and if we achieve those goals. FDD has been incredibly transparent and has set very clear top level goal metrics to improve round over round and clear OKRs for each outcome funded to keep us accountable.