I also appreciate the work of @DisruptionJoe and @tigress over the past two weeks to solicit and incorporate feedback from across the DAO and reflect it in this new proposal.
It’s easy for FDD’s contributions to be overlooked, especially during a bear market, when every cost and budget request deserves scrutiny. That said, I truly believe that decentralized identity and Sybil resistance are critical to the credibility of quadratic funding (“now us”) and as primitives for regenerative society (“future us”). FDD’s proposal for S16 has my support because it will continue to position Gitcoin as a leading voice on decentralized identity, engage a broader community in developing Sybil defense mechanisms, and start offering new utility for Grants and Round Managers on the protocol.
Supportive of the FDD budget. I’ve read up on the comments and replies in the draft budget and echo the comments by Carl above. In the context of the ‘light’ budget approach as decided in CSDO and combined with the earlier live session we had to review the draft commitments and budget I’ve gathered enough feedback to vote yes here.
@tigress@DisruptionJoe - thanks. I suspect these exercises are not the most fun part of the job, but I do appreciate the work you put into summarizing S15 and mapping a plan into S16.
My observations when comparing S15 results and to S16 plans:
It looks like FDD has made progress in telling the FDD “story”. You have a technical area and given few stewards volunteered to review the FDD budget, socializing your story is important work. Well done.
In S14, FDD squelched $80K in fraudulent activity. In S15 that jumped to $785K. It was not really a cost avoidance so we cannot attribute an ROI to the work, but the intangibles (trust in the brand) is something to be celebrated systemically. Perhaps this story feeds into the MMM Impact Report that @alejandro is working on or the content pipeline @mathilddv is building for blog content? I really like the use of twitterspaces in relation to the hackathon and think that is headed the right direction.
Regarding the Open Data Community (ODC) objective - I find this initiative compelling:
The creation of a web3 decentralization measurement is a public good in and of itself. And if socialized well, it could be a significant forcing function of change. I am not sure how funding and utility work into that but I am interested to see the outcomes and add any help I can along the way.
Related to the above, I was in two different calls this past week related to lamenting the lack of thought / tools in this area for startups. As we develop our own plans, might be interesting to link this to the work Gary is doing on " “Buidl in Public”" - because it looks like there is a need.
This is exciting - and will be great to prove out a “protocol business model” . The term “business model” does not need to have a negative connotation, it only describes how we link goals > to actions > to the allocation of resources. In this case, how the market will allocate resources (funding) back to the services you are developing. Thank you for thinking about this. As I think around the corner to an extended or worsening bear market, this could come into sharper focus. For everyone.
Brand new Steward, lacking context. Apologies if questions and comments are naive while I get my footing
I am still learning a lot about Gitcoin’s FDD work stream and the need for sybil defense & decentralized identity for the grants protocol & Passport—last week’s DAO Vibes call with @ccerv1 was a helpful start!
The S15 Total Fraud Prevention of 785K would seem to easily justify this budget request—unclear why @shawn16400 comments that this can’t be attributed to ROI?
Could someone provide a link to additional context for the OpenData Community? I see this listed as a goal and also as a contributor—is this a contractor, event, new community, or new initiative? A bit confused but eager to learn more. Thank you!
Finding founding partners will allow the entity to be neutral like the Linux Foundation. The open data infrastructure it incubates will include open source and decentralized components a service provider like Dune Analytics or Flipside Crypto would use, but has no business model. This is how the open data community will attempt to stop centralization via a “death from 1,000 cuts”. We will do it by preventing one cut at a time.
This burden is all for all of web 3. Now that we are launching the protocol, we face this challenge directly. We could spend DAO funds to build this infrastructure for everyone, but the open data community is a better strategic move.
ODC will allow us to not only share the cost burden, but allows for a non-competitive partnership with all the data indexing services. This lets us aggregate data sets for analysis on specific use cases. By crowdsourcing analysis, the analysis quality improves and its cost goes down. At the same time, because this is where the analysts “hang out”, the vendors are willing to pay to participate.
Lastly, this is an interesting opportunity for us to dogfood the protocol. The project has had it’s initial payments go out via Quadratic Voting. We would love to fair launch this community with a bicameral house where participation is the only way to earn governance. This can all happen onchain now that we have the grants protocol and aqueducts to replace the oracle components that would have been needed before.
No longer part of the team as some people may know(or not), but cannot abstain from commenting on the budget.
Steward view:his budget is considerably smaller than the other WS budgets.
1.Overtime FDD appears to be have been faster in organizing, evolving, treasury management and now the team consists of data scientists, data analysts and mostly people with huge data/anti-fraud experience.
2.Sometimes it feels that the workstreams that are more efficient are put even under more “pressure” to evolve further. As a former team member I can honestly say that the FDD has navigated decentralized decision making and the team sessions we had were always designed in a way that lead to innovation.
3.The efforts of the FDD team and the complexity of the subjects FDD is working on: sybil defense(unsolved problem), advanced fraud detection in web3(unsolved problem) are hardcore.
1,2, 3 Congratulations to @DisruptionJoe and the team! And if all of that isn’t enough…just think about the fact that I am no longer part of this team and still believe they should be funded(lol)
I asked @DisruptionJoe or @epowell101 about this earlier this week someplace (I think - this week was kind of a blur). For anyone following, a quick explainer: A simple case of measuring the return on an effort is, if I spend $1M on a project, how much value do I expect to receive for that effort, or Return on Investment (ROI)? If the result of spending $1M, I earn $1.5M, my ROI is (1.5M-1M)/1M = a ROI of 50%.
Alternatively - we can look at cost avoidance. How much money am I NOT going to have to spend as a result of that investment. If I spend $1M on a an energy savings project and as a result I reduce my fuel spending by $1.5M the ROI is also 50%.
For all you Project Mgmt/cost accounting-types, yes I know I am skipping over WACC and TVM, but deal with it .
The issue is that for the service FDD delivers, ROI is more opaque. Gitcoin does not receive any more income, nor does it avoid any costs for squelching $785K in fraud. So my point it, I really want to use ROI - because a back-of-the-napkin ROI would be (785-362)/362 = ~116% - which is impressive, especially when compared to the prior period results ($80K) but the ROI measure really does not really work here. (Yes, I know multiple periods may have to be considered, the total cost is not fully baked in, and a bunch of other caveats).
To be clear. I am not attempting to diluting the value of FDD - in fact it is the opposite. I am attempting to pointing out 1) it is not obvious how to measure the intangible benefit FDD delivers 2) the value delivered is pretty darn impressive and 3) when compared to prior periods, the velocity of value-add is huge.
I was thrown off by the number you have for GR14 of $80k.
The fraud tax as quoted there is comprised of:
The delta of match allocations before and after squelching.
The grants which were denied allocation via disqualification.
It does not include:
The delta of better match allocation from Trust Bonus
The preventative effect of simply having fraud defense
I’d say we average around $650k - $800k pretty consistently on the measurable side since around GR12.
Like you point out, these services don’t provide ROI to any individual entity - clearly they are a public good. Therefore, as we move to the grants protocol, I think there should be a grant in each round to compliment what the DAO subsidizes for the communities which run grants rounds.
I believe FDD is doing good work, though I still am confused quite often about the details of what they do. The budget is slimmed down and I like it. I still think it could do with a tiny bit more slimming down – but I feel confident enough to vote YES here.
Looking forward to seeing how the OKRs will be executed on and for the retrospective during the next season.
Why was the FDD vote only open for 3 days? Sadly I was traveling and assumed it would be open as long as the other PGF work stream as that vote was opened before it… so I missed the chance to vote on it.
Is there a reason that FDD is open for 3 days, some votes were open for 5 days and some votes are open for 7 days? Is there no standard?
Well, I will post this anyway. FDD does great work, and is one of the slimmest work streams we have, Great work @DisruptionJoe and team!
That said we need to make cuts and the only way the stewards can signal it is by voting no.
So I am would have voted no on this work stream if the vote was still open and will be voting no on all other work streams until we get our spending under control. This is the only thing I can do, and I hope other Stewards will follow suit. We have given strong warnings over the last few seasons and they don’t seem to be enough.
We cannot spend this much money in this market.
I am happy to work with the Gitcoin Hiring team to explain how Giveth finds intrinsically motivated high caliber contributors in lower income countries to keep our budget at 1/10th of the cost.
Hi @griff - thanks for the question. Our the Gitcoin process stipulates the vote has to be open for five days, by practice the we often extend the vote if it falls across a weekend. When the FDD proposal was posted up, the snapshot default date of three days was used by mistake. The mistake was noticed on day two when 4.6M votes had already been cast. @Disruption Joe | Gitcoin posted up a note on the stewards discord forum indicating the mistake. https://gov.gitcoin.co/t/gitcoin-dao-governance-process-v3/10358/22