Refactoring Gitcoin DAO: Evolving the FDD

[DisruptionJoe]

@kyle

I am just really surprised and dismayed to see the hostility in your response both here and on Twitter. Its feels pretty immature and not one that has the dAO’s best interest in mind but perhaps your own.

I apologize if this came off as hostile. I attempted to keep it less hostile than this came across to me:

@kevin.olsen

End the FDD workstream, do not post a budget for the FDD in S17

Is some type of warning to me before posting this a reasonable expectation?

Especially after sitting in the CSDO call and everyone agreeing that our budgets would remain flat for next season. Nothing was said to me then.

On Wednesday, you and I had a conversation about when it would be appropriate to split up FDD. We discussed 6 months as an the earliest that we could potentially commit, but we would keep the conversation going.

I shared these pieces of information to the workstream. We were feeling good. We have a lot of work to do and we are excited to do it.

Then this post comes on Friday afternoon. Do I call attention to it and ruin peoples weekends? Do I ignore it and have them upset that I said nothing? This put us in a difficult place that wasn’t necessary imho.

@kyle

Let’s frame what Olsen said in a different way:

1. This is a much better way of saying it.

2. It does hold incorrect interpretations of Passport ability to provide sybil defense at this time.

@kyle

You have been advocating for you own DAO for 6+mo’s now. You’d have that chance?

Yes, and apparently I have not communicated my reasoning very well. I do feel as though I have stated these points many times including the exact comment that he referenced.

• I’m not interested in FDD spinning out, i’m interested in FDD creating a new entity to spin out
• FDD can do this to model how it would work for the DAO (because I’m worried!)
• Once some service revenue comes in, people shift focus to the revenue generating thing. Services require people and before you know it your past the event horizon with an org that has an internal public goods funding problem.
• We are planning on ODC spinning out. It is not ready. There are reasons for this. Let’s explore them together.

@DisruptionJoe

I’m very concerned that once we begin taking revenue, we will set our goals in ways that slowly eliminate our efforts for the public goods parts of our ecosystem. The best way to stop this from potentially being a problem is to design public, transparent, and ratified processes for Gitcoin to hold investment in workstreams which find a way to produce revenue. This would clearly set the line that GitcoinDAO treasury is ONLY funding public goods in our ecosystem.

Additionally, I’ve been frustrated at our inability to have a conversation without it being a commitment. Let’s talk about these possibilities. Let’s talk about the potential.

This is an attempt at a better conversation around revenue: An Interactive Model for Gitcoin Revenue Growth Forecasting

@kyle

As for the other contributors, I don’t see this as “fire the workstream.” I see this as a step to getting folks closer to tech. In the near future I could see myself proposing a similar “refactor MMM” where we move Product Marketing into the respective workstreams, Grants marketing into PGF and then build a new Brand Marketing workstream (and decide if merch is in that mandate).

I’m very ok with you posting this in the future. I’d be hard pressed to support it if you posted it before the next budget after we sat in the room and agreed on a course of action. It isn’t that we can’t change course, it is that we could offer some courtesy around discussing peoples lives.

@llllvvuu

erhaps it would also be worth asking the fine folks who are putting their money at stake sponsoring these rounds if they would like to fund fraud defense or if they would be more comfortable with a $785k fraud cost and associated reputational damage.

I’ve suggested this. Although the recommendation is to spin out FDD services, at this time there is an understanding that PGF is working on service agreements. I’ve gone along with this because we had no clue that anyone would want us to spin out this soon.

@llllvvuu

t would also fit the broader theme of giving the DAO a sustainable revenue model and aligning incentives with stakeholders to whom we are providing services (i.e. running their grant programs for them, currently for free, which may be too generous).

Yes. This is why I’ve been pushing the conversation. Program managers will have a need for more productized and professional commercial services. There is an OPPORUNITY worth discussing and shouldn’t be considered as trying to defect or be independent. This is for the good of the WHOLE DAO.

What we really need is space for strong contrarian opinions to be debated with a larger group than CSDO.

@llllvvuu

One could propose that FDD service fees be negotiated directly between protocol users and FDD as a spun-out entity.

Yes. This is a better solution than just dropping everyone performing in a workstream because they might be able to collect some revenue. Let’s forecast, plan, and see if there is an opportunity the GTC community might be missing!

@llllvvuu

The “its own workstream” is identical, whereas the “move into the Passport ‘customer’ workstream” seems to be a contentious takeover play.

This is an elephant in the room. CSDO has 2 reps from each workstream. In the GPC refactor post a couple days before, Kevin suggests that GPC become two workstreams with him a half lead for each. I honestly don’t think this is a power play from Kevin. I do think his suggestion for GPC is a good one as is most of his suggestion.

Additionally, I don’t have any desire to remain a workstream lead unless there are people who depend on me or would like me to remain. Look at my steward introduction. I hoped to train someone and have them in the role by season 15. Unfortunately with bear market budget cuts, we had to refocus. I’m open to stepping down from FDD workstream lead representation at CSDO, but I would like a clear discussion around who follows and how they are elected, chosen, or other. This should happen PRIOR to a move to defund or split FDD which may have the side affect of the changing representation.

Moving Forward

FDD and other workstreams are sharing a first draft of budgets with CSDO tomorrow. Friday there is a 3 hour facilitated session for us to discuss and further align these budgets and make sure the workstreams agree on a path forward. Between Tuesday and Friday, I will share our FDD budget and future plan with Kevin to bring him into the process of co-creating a plan with FDD.