Is there a person on both sides who plans on taking the role of “meta-delegate” in each ecosystem?
I’d 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 “vote” via likes in this forum (or more formal via actual vote and it’s part of the full proposal…)
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 doesn’t exist yet. We have no way to properly know how to define the market price of such token and I don’t think Gitcoin should be in such early stages of buying pre-market tokens. I’m sure there’s 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 “waitlist” 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. I’ve even seen some videos on YouTube of a working product. But I am extremely skeptical of projects that I haven’t used, as there are tons of little details that make or break the experience. The fact that the project seems huge and complicated doesn’t 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 it’s a good tool for ENS. Same here: I don’t know if Wonder is a good tool for Gitcoin and believe we should test before committing such large amounts of money.
No GitHub. Where’s 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 can’t 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 don’t believe Gitcoin is an early stage investment firm and we don’t have the tools to judge the investment potential of pre-launch tokens.
- If this is a collaboration proposal, I don’t 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 don’t see any evidence that your code is open source which would be a requirement for me.
Decentralizing our treasury, or risk, should be done with a portfolio mentality and this proposal doesn’t take that into account.
I’d 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, let’s get those red flags cleared up!
Our Github repo can be found here. We’re in the process of doing a security audit for our backend to be open-sourced!
As @Pop pointed out we’d love to change the proposal to 50k GTC in exchange for 1.5% of our treasury (as well as 1% to Aqueduct). We’re 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 didn’t want people to enter their emails. Twitter would have been better! We’re 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 we’re 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 wouldn’t represent people’s countries’ 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
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. I’d 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.
Thanks for clearing that up. I liked the green flag detail, but you’re right about the negative connotation of the word “red flag”, it’s 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.
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?
Amazing - would love to set up a Gitcoin instance
I’m 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 didn’t 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, it’s 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 it’s 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!
I just read the thread, and for the first time as an occasional GD voter, I’m 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, I’m 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 doesn’t 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.). I’m 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.
Let me say, I tried to start a similar product with the Swarm City team in 2018 called ETHkan and am a big fan of what Wonder is doing! I also really like Dework and would love to personally support any and every project that is integrating the Kanban approach with web3 tooling. Very needed!
That said, 50k GTC is a lot of money, more than most working groups get, and the convo in this thread feels like trying to justify throwing money to our friends more than it feels like this is an awesome opportunity that we should go out on a limb to support, so I am going to vote AGAINST to help get a discussion going and reserve my right to change my after the Stewards Council meeting.
My biggest issue is understanding if being part of this is in scope of Gitcoin DAO? If so, thats cool, and we should get a group together around it, and it’s not a bad move, Metacartel and ETHDenver do this sort of work for their ecosystem incubating Kernal projects could be an awesome move towards making Gitcoin DAO regenerative while also supporting the ecosystem… but I doubt making a full DAO vote for every move would be the way to go for that.
So yeah… I am on vacation this week but will try hard to make the 8am (my time) Stewards Call on Thursday to better understand this, and I might change my vote to “For.”
Reading through this post it sounds more like an bet than a partnership and it is complete news to me that Gitcoin is in the business of making bets.
I think we have to discuss this on the stewards call this Thursday. Will ping in the channel to make sure it is in the agenda.
Totally understand your concerns but I would like to highlight parts of the proposal.
With this partnership, we want to build tooling that GitcoinDAO uses and closely work with GitcoinDAO to improve our platform in a way that specifically serves the needs of the DAO as well as Gitcoin funded projects.
We also want to help those in Kernel better collaborate on their projects since Wonder was actually started in KB4. Specifically, this would be tooling that:
- Helps onboard new contributors and gives context to work that needs to be done in the GitcoinDAO
- Makes it easier to pay Gitcoin contributors for tasks/bounties and through retroactive/recurring payments
- Sets up more nuanced permissioning and token gating around who can create/review tasks
- Helps create better task workflows within the DAO across the different working groups
- Enables contributors to build up their web3/on chain profile (we’re part of DAOStar where we help build standards around credentialing).
- Helps Kernel fellows build their projects in public and invite other fellows to collaborate on those projects.
In addition, 1% of our treasury will also be dedicated towards aqueduct to help improve the aqueduct technology as well as to ensure part of the funding of Wonder projects flows back into the Gitcoin ecosystem.
This is why we think this is more of a partnership, not an investment. Happy to attend the Steward’s meeting or set up a separate call/meeting to discuss more!
I am supportive of this proposal and think the revision of the amount to 50K is a good one.
I will acknowledge that I have been part of conversations we’ve been having internally at the DAO around partnerships & mutual grants strategy which many folks who are commenting may not be privy to, and we should do a better job surfacing these with stewards and coming to alignment collectively on the strategy, in addition to this specific proposal. I think @ceresstation’s post from earlier today does a great job in starting to surface this discussion.
here are some reasons:
From the Motivation, I am not convinced.
Wonder provides DAO tooling to GitcoinDAO, but at the same time, the DAO tools are not only for GitcoinDAO.
So from this partnership,
what benefits for GitcoinDAO?
From my view, the partnership should be positive sum (or multiple wins), but from this proposal, I didn’t see many benefits for GitcoinDAO.
All in all, now I would say no for this proposal.
As it relates to the concerns brought up by @bobjiang, the way I see it is:
This proposal gives Gitcoin the ability to shape the direction of this DAO tool to more closely match the needs of the Gitcoin community.
The partnership is positive sum in the sense that it helps Wonder to have GitcoinDAO in its network, and it helps GitcoinDAO to have stakes in Wonder since that implies a say in the direction of a DAO tool that is already serving large DAOs and making them more efficient. This will make Wonder more decentralized and transparent by bringing the Gitcoin community to it, and it will make Gitcoin more efficient and productive since the Wonder team will start building features that specifically fit GitcoinDAO’s needs. Another good illustration of the positive sum nature of this collaboration is that 1% of the Wonder treasury will be dedicated to quadratic funding of Gitcoin grant rounds that use Wonder for project management.
With regards to the other questions:
StemsDAO which I am a core contributor of, is using Wonder extensively to onboard and handle contributor workflows - it has been very helpful for us to streamline that process. I’m happy to answer more specific questions about this. Also, having large DAOs on the platform that are already doing work and have high throughput productivity requirements means that the contributors on Wonder are all typically experienced with web3 projects and decentralized work environments .
Wonder actually supports payment via Utopia payment request links, but additionally allows context of each payment to be attached to a task, as well as being able to batch pay multiple bounties at the same time. Think @andros attached some demos in this comment.
I voted against this mutual grant. I already explained the line of reasoning to my fellow stewards in the call we had today. Let me sum up here:
I don’t believe this proposal has followed due process. The original proposal was for 100k GTC. In fact as of right now the post still says 100k. The snapshot is for 50k GTC, but it links to this post which says 100k GTC. The amount changed somewhere in the middle of the discussion but not enough time has been given to deliberate and the proposal has not been updated accordingly.
This is a mutual grant acting as a bet for something that may exist in the future. Wonder does not have a token yet. We are effectively setting up a price floor for their token which is not something I believe gitcoin should be touching at all. I am not againt such mutual grants with projects that already have tokens in the market but a grant for a promise of a token is not something I think gitcoin should do.
I feel (this could be my personal shortcoming) that not enough deliberation and discussion has happened on this proposal. I learned about it 2 days ago. We got an explanation by Scott in the stewards call today. But the snapshot already ends in less than 24 hours. For such proposals I really think stewards should be given a heads up and context much earlier in the process.
I voted against this proposal for these reasons:
Seconding @lefterisjp on his comment this proposal request a budget of 100,000k GTC while we can see on the Snapshot the amount is at 50,000k GTC, from this post I can still see the requested amount is 100,000k witch differ and I do think we did not had enough time to deliberate.
It’s not clear on how or where the funds will be used.
Wonder token has not launched yet so there is no guarantee.
Ideas: Why don’t we just do a token swap at this point once you guys have launched your token? Why do you need 100,000k - 50,000k GTC?