Is there demo / repo I could checkout out to see what the project offers / future scope!
We do lack an effective mgmt solution for paying folks within a workstream and having a tool like wonder solve that would be <3
2 Likes
Initial thoughts
Took a look at the site, like the idea of task management enabled on Web3
Questions/ Thoughts
- What would governance look like? This partnership is essentially us taking part in Wonderâs governance but that isnât clear. This means that we will be taking on responsibilities without clarity. Whatâs explained is that thereâll be âspartan councilâ style governance but whoâs gonna be on the council/threshold to be on the council?
- Why didnât you approach this from a grants perspective instead? Initiating a token swap is more complex and Gitcoin could also write proposals on Wonderâs eventual discourse too
- Wonderâs treasury has ~260k USD (15k USDC, 200k in AAVE?), the ask is 100k GTC which is at least 500k USD in value, essentially tripling Wonderâs current treasury. also, 500k USD would now be 2.5% of the mcap, thereby making Wonderâs new token mcap to be 200M. Thatâs quite a fair bit!
Hope to hear some responses please! Thank you for the proposal
8 Likes
Thanks for the response and the thoughts!
- As mentioned weâd like to take the approach outlined by Index Coop and Synthetix where token holders get to vote who is on the council or leaders with their pods. These will likely be people in our community and core team.
- Token swaps ensure more aligned interests in our opinion and we want to work with Gitcoin on our governance structure as well!
- I think the token market cap would be 24M (2.5% excluding the 1% aqueduct) if Iâm not mistaken. We actually have more funds in fiat - that is just our crypto treasury for now. Some more info here
4 Likes
After reading in detail here I am fully supportive of this partnership.
Wonder has a great potential to not only expand the Gitcoin DAO ecosystem but also provide support to our DAO Toolings and work together with some of the DAO initiatives, such as dCompass, to co-build.
4 Likes
Agree with @Fishbiscuitâs comments that it would be good to have more detail on what that governance process could be like, potentially before we engage in this tokenswap.
Because this is a tokenswap, the questions raised here by @monet-supply might also be worth looking into and responding to, setting up a vesting contract seems like a good idea.
I will probably abstain from voting because I am not sure Gitcoin is actually a âDAO of DAOsâ or should be one. It is good to bring diversity in our treasury but would prefer we pass more tokenswaps only after we have a full-time treasury manager onboard. (work in progress)
3 Likes
Hey @andros & Wonder team - thank you for the proposal and very excited to see Kernel fellows making great strides in the ecosystem and continuing the flow of collaboration with Gitcoin!
Whatâs been achieved by the team so far is telling and I absolutely see the alignment between GD and Wonder. I would suggest and support a slightly lower allocation of 50,000 GTC to begin with. This is mainly because I do believe us taking the time to flesh out our policies for 100k+ mutual grants is important. It is a key piece in strategy moving forward as I feel it ensures the right flow for diversification and cross DAO collaboration.
Should this level work, I would happily see this moving forward.
4 Likes
@krrisis thanks for the thoughts and comments! We talked a little on our governance plans above but would love to also fine-tune that as part of our partnership with Gitcoin. As for the vesting contracts weâll hopefully be able to work with @maerg and PrimeDAO on this
@Pop that totally makes sense and would work for us as well if we lower the Wonder allocation amount to 1.5M $WONDER tokens (1.5% of total supply)! Excited to move forward with it 
3 Likes
Is there a person on both sides who plans on taking the role of âmeta-delegateâ in each ecosystem?
2 Likes
Iâd be glad to take that role on our side!
Happy to take that on from GD side but would also invite other stewards to put themselves forward and maybe we do a signal âvoteâ via likes in this forum (or more formal via actual vote and itâs part of the full proposalâŚ)
2 Likes
First, congratulations for Wonder team on the project and I hope you a lot of success. DAO toolings are definitely super needed and I hope we can see more of them in the future.
Having said that, here are some weird red flags for me:
You are asking $800k dollars to be invested in a token that doesnât exist yet. We have no way to properly know how to define the market price of such token and I donât think Gitcoin should be in such early stages of buying pre-market tokens. Iâm sure thereâs a white paper somewhere that defines how the token governance will work, but until you have it live on main net, these are no guarantees
The project page has no links to the working app. In fact the only two links on the project page are one asking my phone number to be on the âwaitlistâ and another to join the discord. Why are you collecting phone numbers and not addresses? Are doing some analytics on phone numbers? I have bad associations with phone numbers and crypto projects: they remind me of stolen SIM cards, 2fa hacks, phone spams, country blocking etc. I find that GitHub and twitter should be much better tools for sybil protection.
It seems you have a private beta. Iâve even seen some videos on YouTube of a working product. But I am extremely skeptical of projects that I havenât used, as there are tons of little details that make or break the experience. The fact that the project seems huge and complicated doesnât help my fears. I work for ENS DAO and was recently considering using Colony as a tool for our working groups: instead of asking the DAO to put money, I set up my own colony, with my own funds and started paying people out of it. My experience was a bit turn off and I had to shut down the project and will wait a few more months before judging if itâs a good tool for ENS. Same here: I donât know if Wonder is a good tool for Gitcoin and believe we should test before committing such large amounts of money.
No GitHub. Whereâs the project? Sure, maybe you want to have a limited amount of users in your private beta not to overload your servers with early success. But why canât I fork and run it on my own? Are you afraid someone will steal your ideas (
!)?
So in short:
- If this is an investment proposal, I donât believe Gitcoin is an early stage investment firm and we donât have the tools to judge the investment potential of pre-launch tokens.
- If this is a collaboration proposal, I donât see how we can commit to use your tools if they are not accessible for everyone to use
- If this is about supporting DAO toolings, then I donât see any evidence that your code is open source which would be a requirement for me.
4 Likes
Iâd like to fully support this. First, I agree with all of @AvsA and @Fishbiscuit comments above. I think it does require more answers before Iâm ready to support.
Decentralizing our treasury, or risk, should be done with a portfolio mentality and this proposal doesnât take that into account.
Iâd like to know how much of the treasury we are supposed to spend on this tool we have not used. Why is that allocation the proper allocation for our treasury diversification plans? Why does Gitcoin want governance responsibility for Wonder?
Hey @AvsA ,
Great questions, letâs get those red flags cleared up!
Our Github repo can be found here. Weâre in the process of doing a security audit for our backend to be open-sourced!
As @Pop pointed out weâd love to change the proposal to 50k GTC in exchange for 1.5% of our treasury (as well as 1% to Aqueduct). Weâre actually not interested in $ but forming a long term collaboration as our missions of helping public good projects make for a perfect collaboration.
Forgive us, our landing page is 6 months old. Phone numbers were also the way that we thought gave us the best sybil resistance since we didnât want people to enter their emails. Twitter would have been better! Weâre in the process of updating our landing page right now to be more reflective of what we do.
Our long term vision is to be an open platform where anyone can launch a project, but weâre in private alpha because we want to be intentional about the partners that we work with initially and provide more dedicated support. We actually created a workspace for members of the Gitcoin core team who have seen/used the product and gave their stamp of approval. In addition, Gitcoin-related/funded projects such as Developer DAO, Unchained DAO, and Orca are currently using the platform.
We would love to hop on a call with you or the whole community to show/use the product and answer more questions.
P.S maybe wouldnât represent peopleâs countriesâ flags as a negative
@DisruptionJoe if you have any further questions please feel free to let us know!
EDIT: we now have an updated website here
4 Likes
Based on my conversations with people from Kernel and our team, I am satisfied with the answers given.
I am still making up my mind, but leaning towards support. Iâd like to see projects go from Hackathons, to grants, to kernel, to partners. This is an exciting opportunity.
The aqueduct will set a great precedent as well. While I am still unsure if we should be investing in early stage products AND I have reservations around not having any sort of comparison to the overall budget and treasury of the DAO, I am hesitantly supportive at this point.
1 Like
Thanks for clearing that up. I liked the green flag detail, but youâre right about the negative connotation of the word âred flagâ, itâs an interesting point.
I would personally prefer to see gitcoin invest in products that we can test ourselves and to buy tokens that can be independently valued by the market. But it seems that those who have actually seen the product and have some way to evaluate the value of the promised tokens are more excited, which is definitely a good sign.
2 Likes
I too love the idea of seeding growth with more communities, especially ones that we know from Kernel.
I am supportive of the revised proposal (50K GTC) with the terms on retention and the pieces from Wonder (1.5% and 1% Aqueduct).
would love to see this move to snapshot soon
PS - Do we have A Gitcoin instance up and running yet? If not, can I help you get that created?
1 Like
Iâm supportive of the new 50k GTC revised amount.
- It seems Wonder is doing good work and would be a positive partnership for Gitcoin
- I was initially hesitant about the 100k GTC amount, especially since at the time GTC was at $8. An $800k early-stage token swap didnât really seem to me what Gitcoin DAO should be focused on directing funds to. A smaller amount to foster long term collaboration is something I can be supportive of though
- I think in anticipation of future similar proposals, itâs worth Stewards discussing how we feel about Gitcoin DAO directing treasury funds into early-stage projects as this feels different to me than standard treasury diversification (moving some funds into more stable or liquid assets)
- I think itâs also worth a discussion among Stewards on meta-governance if we have the proper structures/processes in place for it and if this is what we want to dedicate resources to. Thanks @Pop for offering to be the meta-delegate in the case of Wonder!
3 Likes
I just read the thread, and for the first time as an occasional GD voter, Iâm leaning towards voting against the majority here.
There are many positive aspects to this partnership, very well articulated by @andros. I acknowledge all of the pros, Iâm just not convinced enough that they balance the cons.
As mentioned by @linda, funding early-stage projects is a different activity than treasury diversification. A token swap can have other purposes, like solidifying an incubation process or expanding an existing partnership. As many people mentioned here, GD doesnât have processes in place to incubate early-stage projects (while Gitcoin has a long history of funding such projects through grants). Unless I missed it, it has never been an approved strategy with associated policy, structure, and budget. I understand and approve of the usefulness of having meta-delegates, but it sounds like a rushed and ad hoc measure that covers only a small part of what such activity would entail.
My main concern is that the proposal would set apart Wonder from other projects supported by grants (or not supported at all). There are so many new open source projects for DAO tooling right now (Dework, Charmverse, Otterspace, Crew3, Station, etc.). Iâm concerned about the unintended and unforeseen consequences that may result from forming a special relationship with one of them without the justification of an existing and successful partnership, or the existence of a seed investment program.
2 Likes