Thanks for taking the time to get this initiative started,
I’d like to draw your attention to my recent post: A Vision for Grassroots DAOs. Most of my feedback will relate back to those core principles I’ve laid out. This seems appropriate as Freelancer DAO aims to become a Grassroots DAO.
Default Dead
As I explain in the Vision for Grassroots DAO post. Every WG and every initiative is Default Dead. What does this mean? It can not proceed unless it is able to gain support from the wider community. A few points to highlight here:
- Support from wider community literally means people outside of the WG chat or the people who show up to community calls.
- There is a concerning trend of people spinning up WGs (often multiple), rubber stamping everything with the very few people who happened to be there a the time, and then brushing off any criticism as ‘this was approved by community during a community call’
- There is a huge cost to have OGs and other key stakeholders chasing up the ever-growing number of WGs of fighting a small minority who decided things amongst themselves. People’s time are worth money - value it and respect it.
- Expanding on the above, the onus is on the WG to - when they are ready - go on to the wider community and get the support required.
Substance Matter
Overall, I am struggling to grasp the core of this DAO.
- Most of the work it seeks to do is currently within scope of Marketing DAO. It goes without saying that I am against spinning new DAOs that cover the same scope as existing DAOs but with lower standards.
This is a conversation I’d like to take up over a call - identify the need for the work done, why these proposals aren’t coming up through M DAO now, and identify steps M DAO can take to achieve the same result.
M DAO has been operating for a LONG time. During the review period in October we gave similar structures as the one proposed [Middle Men disbursing money to third parties] a lot of consideration and deliberately decided not to include it within scope. Main reasons were:
- Misalignment between the ‘agent’ and the content being produced. Most of these ‘agents’ (Rent seeking middle men) go into securing and maintaining an attractive payment structure for themselves for ‘managing’ someone else;
- Quality control. It was extremely hard to ensure that the quality was up to standard. Agents have no ownership in the content creation process, and neither them nor the contributors cared much. There seems to be symbiotic relationship when someone else pays and both the agents and contributors get paid without producing much value.
This resulted in us eliminating ‘Middle Men’ structures and encouraging applicants to go to M DAO directly.
Also, what are they key differences between this DAO and the Engagement DAO which you’ve also been involved with and, I believe, received funding for in the past.
Ongoing Decentralisation
My original post also explains the way Ongoing Decentralisation is expected to work under NDC: as one funding vehicle grows to a certain point (current figure for Grassroots DAOs is expected to be ~$100k) then the area that is receiving most of the funds can spin out as a new, more focused DAO. The logic here is simple:
- The new DAO should be lead by the top contributors and recipients from Grassroots DAO. They should have demonstrated the quality of work and contributions and can now receive more autonomy and funding directly from Community Treasury.
- It avoids having a proliferation of low quality WGs that aim to bypass the high standards set by existing DAOs and that risk damaging the public perception of the entire NDC (‘too many grifters and scammers’).
I good first example would be Regional DAO. M DAO is working very closely with RC WG and, until v1 is ready and RC can become a Grassroots DAO, funding to Regional proposals will flow through M DAO.
I strongly believe the current WG would be best suited as a Proposal to M DAO rather than a brand new DAO itself.
Council & Remuneration (80/20 Rule)
Another core principle I stand by is having people involved in Governance roles who are active in the NEAR ecosystem doing ‘real work’. Very few should spend more than 20% of their time doing governance.
- Who are the six proposed Council members and what is their current body of work on NEAR?
^ from the current FDAO Charter
Finally, and perhaps to tie everything I’ve said above together, I am honestly shocked to see a DAO request $12k for disbursing $10k. Marketing DAO could theoretically approve the full $10k to fund this initiative as a proposal… This seems to me like a sad indictment that the main if not the only reason why this DAO aims to exist is to create six duchy governance positions.
What is value?
Briefly expanding on the above. As the team revises any budget guidelines, now and in the future, it is critical to ask - how much value is being generated and at what cost.
NF and subsequently G DAOs frequently talk about ‘Weekly Active Users’ (WAU) or number of transactions on-chain, etc.
An equally important metric, if not more important, is the Cost of Acquisition (CAP).
It is clear that if you hand out money, you will ‘onboard users’ one way or another. But we must ask a series of questions:
- who are the key customer segments we need right now? Developers? Builders? Users with X net worth? Existing users from other chains? Web 2 corporations seeking to migrate to Web 3?
- How much is it costing us to onboard each?
While there no clear numbers, it should be clear to most that we are spending too much to attract people to do basic things. Your employees are not your users.
Conclusion
I am open to working with the F DAO team to find ways this can go ahead as a M DAO proposal instead. If it were to grow enough, then the natural course would be for it to be spun out on it’s own. I am against the current DAO structure, value proposition, and funding ask.
I’ve taken a lot of time to explaining my reasoning, concerns, and a possible way forward. Hope tis information is useful and I ask of anyone wanting to join the conversation to also do so in a thoughtful manner or at least adhere to community guidelines.
AVB