P1) If a member to HoM is remunerated according to the poll-
a) If I do have the technical expertise to assess a funding proposal, why th would I agree to do such complex work for less than the average salary of a clown(Circus Clown Salary | PayScale) Would it really not disincentivize truly capable people to care??
b) From a game theoretical, rational individual mental model-- I am an ecosystem representative to HoM and If do my job perfectly, my incentive ceiling is 25K-
b) but if I act maliciously (take a cut, pay to play, quid pro quo collusion) my incentive ceiling is effectively a % of my specific ecosystem budget ?
Why would I act in the direction of a good outcome for the community at the risk (more a certainty IMO) of assured opportunity cost for me ?? Definition of Perverse incentive - Wikipedia.
Would we a laughing stock for inserting such a common sense, systemic vulnerability (remember HoM has the EXCLUSIVE right to propose in V1) into perhaps a great opportunity??
P2) Does the poll, signal a longer term reputation in the ecosystem as a prerequisite to be on a governance council ? If so, are there any members like that currently in V0 who doesn’t fulfill this criteria and would they be allowed to continue in power?
P5) V1 framework does not have a “grassroots DAO” LAYER written into it – YET !!
Did we slip up when this question was put out to poll or is this meant for V0 governance ? If so, why do we see a divergence from the popular signal to the actual action ??
There is a reason why the projects had to prove themselves over and over again, @cizi31, and that is to protect the treasury, so that Guilds don’t, for example, misbehave or ask for more money than what is spent. Because if there is anything above the community, it is the Treasury and the Protocol. It remains to be seen how the NEAR Foundation or NDC will handle the regional guilds, or whether regional guilds will continue to be funded by the marketing DAO, but one thing is clear if a project or guild has behaved negatively, then this must not be funded further under any circumstances, otherwise, it would contradict the values of the NEAR Foundation.
I believe regional DAOs should exist, but they should seek funding from the relevant entity(ies).
When a new regional hub is bootstrapped, it should be much easier to get their budget (which will start small) from one of the themed DAOs (Creative/Marketing/Developers) and from there they will grow and potentially raise budgets from local partnerships, and later could even become independent accelerators.
For example, organizing an event for OpenWeb adoption will fall into the Marketing DAO realm, while organizers of a workshop could get funding from Creative or Developers DAO (Creative DAO is about building end-user apps, Developers DAO is about improving the tooling, documentation, etc).
More specifically, I could see such requests to fall into Developers DAO if the focus and KPIs are switched from awareness (marketing) to community contributions (pull requests to the common good libraries), or Creative DAO if the focus would be on getting successful projects to be launched.
Hey Vlad. I see you’re not familiar with grassroots DAOs. Creative dao doesn’t build end-user apps. The dao spent over 2M during the last two years and didn’t give any valuable results.
Developers’ dao is not transparent structure, no any reports since the dao was created.
