I am thankful to the FDD workstream for their hard work on the DAO, but I have a few suggestions for how to make it better.
1. Remove “Community/Onboarding” and “Cross Stream DAOops” portions of this budget
I am against the “Community/Onboarding” and “Cross Stream DAOops” portions of this budget. The reason for this is:
- The FDD workstream still has many unsolved (and in some cases, existential) problems related to sybil/collusion resistence that in my opinion, they should be focused on before expanding scope to incubating other workstreams. There is a lot of promising work being done, but the desired outcome - solid fraud defense at scale - still eludes us.
- There are multiple contributors who are in charge of the onboarding/cross-stream-ops mandates (and only these mandates) already. It would sew chaos for these contributors to have FDD managing a budget for onboarding/cross-stream ops without proper onboarding/cross-stream ops centric governance and priority setting.
- I have not seen most of the multisig holders on FDD multisig on the cross-stream-ops or onboarding calls, therefore I do not think it is legitimate for them to be managing a budget for it.
- I don’t think your point “we have not developed a structured governance mechanism for it capable of handling contentious decisions” is true. Kris started facilitating a time-tested dao governance process during the cross stream gov/ops call 2 weeks ago.
2. Remove “Reserve” portion of budget
In addition to the concerns above, I also question why the “PLUS Q1 2024 Defense Reserves = 40k GTC” is needed. Could you not just request the 40k at the start of Q1 2022 (assuming the "2024 is a typo) assuming things are going well enough to support that budget at that time? If not, can you please lay out why that budget is needed at this time?
3. Focus on outcomes
All in all, I find this workstream budget proposal to be very “what were doing” centric, but it doesnt go into depth about the outcomes being achieved. It’s easier to transparently say things are working (or not) if the proposal is outcome focused. Here are some example outcomes that a workstream like this could be focused on:
- Minimize the fraud tax (and false negatives) for sybil resistence.
- Minimize the collusion tax
- Develop product features for cGrants related to sybil/collusion resistence.
- Develop product features for dGrants related to sybil/collusion resistence.
- Advance the ability for the community to report mischievious behaviour.
- Educate the community on sybil/collusion resistence.
- Maintain a low DSO (days outstanding) on new grant applications or grant flags or any other work-item that needs to be processed manually.
From your existing proposal, I do not know which of these (or other outcomes) are a priority for you right now.
Summary
I believe that the FDD workstream has great people and is totally well intentioned, but I think this proposal has ballooned in scope too large. I think the most healthy thing to do is
- Remove the onboarding/cross-stream ops portion of this budget.
- Remove (or justify) why you “need” 95k of reserves.
- Focus the proposal more on outcomes that the workstream has achieved or plans to achieve.