[Proposal] FDD Workstream Season 13 Budget Request

[nollied]

@kyle

this is another example where we are building and scaling without stopping to evaluate how to solve the problem from first principles. For example, have we considered requiring 25 DAI to be staked per new grant request to help increase the fraud tax on this process? If so, apologizes for throwing stones, I do worry that scale has been the default state for FDD (in many cases for good reason, as it reduces fragility).

staking in the process will have no more of an effect than an increased gas price. it’s an interesting idea, but ultimately a sybil attacker already has to front a large amount for gas. although, it would be worth simulating the affects of such a mechanism. i will keep this in mind as we progress with the matrix (red team) squad.

@kyle

The Ground Control work seems like it may be duplicative. As some of that work is being covered/compensated by DAO Ops. I would strike most of that budget if I am being prudent.

exactly what is duplicative? the data storage layer is part of ground control, the function of which has been pushed off for a very long time.

also, DAO Ops has proven to be too coarse to actually have a tangible impact in FDD… bubble-up emergence of organization is more affective in both the short and long term (isn’t this what the DAO wants to facilitate…?) pragmatism (natural selection) rules, not downward imposed idealistic solutions.

@kyle

GIA seems like the wrong solution to the problem, but I would leave that $75K budget intact with the hopes of us partnering with GPG to build in a staking model in GR14, or another software based hurdle (recognizing a change for GR13 is likely too aggressive).

do you know what the GIA even is? it’s goal is to decentralize and cut costs in the long term. maybe we aren’t communicating it’s function properly (@David_Dyor and i just discussed writing up an article to sum everything up), but simply dismissing it as the “wrong solution” seems naive…

@kyle

Sybil Defenders budget seems pretty heavy, but I am not an expert in how to cut there.

i do somewhat agree. i have been vocal about my discontent with the sybil problem and relying on DID/sybil as a crutch. we had an enlightening exchange with glen weyl (QF paper author) about this.

however i still think your reasoning isn’t very well thought out. the double-paying you are referring to is the growing pains of offboarding this responsibility onto the DAO. @omnianalytics is running the initiative to offload our sybil ML process partially onto the community (open source) in collaboration with the data storage layer squad that I lead, which will alleviate a lot of funding in the future.

@kyle

This assumes that in S14, we can reduce costs as the “double payment” for BSCI and Community run models goes away, the GIA work is hopefully greatly reduced (if GPG can help build staking into grant creation or some other software deterrent to the deluge of new spammy grants), and DAO Ops continues to support and fund work that FDD relies on (DevOps, Consulting, Accounting, etc.)

again… staking is not a very well thought out solution, slashing GIA will only harm the ecosystem and make the review process:

1. take significantly longer
2. require a good deal of human training/inconsistent grant reviews
3. cost more to pay for human expert grant reviews
4. the same amount of centralized (if not – more)
5. inhibit our ability to do finer grained data analysis of the grant-reviewal process