The Governance Working Group is a community-driven initiative to define and technically implement evolving governance models that are proposed and adopted by the NDC to empower pragmatic decentralization over time.
The GWG has a limited scope to create and recommend evolving governance models and technical implementations that, with a passing vote, are adopted by the NDC.
The GWG does not direct, manage or operate the proposed governing bodies or the Community Treasury .
This clear line of delineation creates a clear path to decentralization. It removes the GWG as a central entity that governs the NEAR Ecosystem and allows for the full scope of the Community to be involved.
Project Phase: Discovery through Dec 31st Budget: ±50%
This budget will be broken down by a quarter with the minimally viable deliverables needed to move forward.
There is a debate emerging as to whether community members contributing to developing the governance framework should be rewarded or do it for free. With three distinct camps emerging:
The level of commitment will be high for community members to oversee and ensure objectives are delivered. The community deserves to be rewarded.
The community is incentivized to deliver this governance framework due to the community treasury and the ability to receive funds post-implementation.
The GWG should not be funded directly but should use the other resources throughout the ecosystem to deliver the governance model by having other nodes provide resources.
Should Community Members be rewarded for contributing to creating and implementing eco-wide governance?
Yes
No
0voters
Should the GWG be funded directly as a working group?
Yes, a multi-year initiative with high commitment and impact
Yes, it should be retroactive and funded once gov framework is live
No, the ecosystem should contribute dedicated resources and ensure delivery
I may sound critical here, but how can this budgeting model work for community building if you did include traveling and consultants and didn’t add any marketing budgets? Pls correct me if I’m wrong, but for me, it doesn’t make much sense.
DAO itself is a good initiative, but with no large and vibrant community that is decentralized and scalable, it is unlikely to bring much value to the future adoption of NEAR.
Hi All, I believe this poll requires much more discussion over the coming months before closing it. It has many implications to it, which I have shared with Henry and can elaborate on when I’m able to attend coming meetings.
The iniative sounds great but the breakdown of grant spending looks very lop-sided.
Half of the proposal amount to go to core team with a further 500k going to consultants to carry out a proposal leaves very little to actually carry out the task of delivering on this proposal.
I’d love to see a more in-depth breakdown of how you have arrived at the current numbers. Also a clear plan on how you achieve to support said projects and what frameworks will be available.
We discussed marketing, and since there is not an actual product to market, we opted to focus on internal communications and community engagement instead. So the budget has resources in the team and additional bounties for that purpose.
The team is tasked with delivering and overseeing specific deliverables related to delivering the governance model. The consultants would be engaged for a review. We also have a budget for bounties for the community to contribute.
So, in this case, those buckets are carrying out the delivery task.
Deliverables
NEAR Constitution
Local and global on-chain decision-making (voting)
Local and global on-chain journals, logs, and minutes
Transitionary Governing bodies, their operations, powers, and checks/balances
Community Treasury operations, safeguards, and checks/balances
Community Guidelines, Code of Conduct, and Dispute Resolution
GWG Communications Strategy
GWG Community Engagement Strategy
DAO V2 Governance Model
Glossary of Terms and Conditions
Community Onboarding, Badge, and Promotion Program
Grass Roots Growth & Sustainability Strategy
Requested full-time/part-time resources in the team budget:
PMO Office
Workgroups
Community
Senior PMO
Governance WG Lead
Moderators 1
Project Coordinator 1
Community WG Lead
Moderators 2
Project Manager 1
Constitution WG Lead
Moderators 3
Project Manager 2
Communications WG Lead
Moderators 4
Technical Governance WG Lead
Social Media 1
Sr. Blockchain Dev 1
Social Media 2
Sr. Blockchain Dev 2
We will work on a Q4 budget and Q1 to provide a better sense for the next several months of activity.
Please forgive me if I’m reading wrong but the proposal has requested ~$1.5m for team salaries. With this being nearly 50% of the proposal amount (with a further 500k locked up for consultants who will also be team) I’d personally like to see a detailed breakdown of each position and how you e achieved the number you’ve requested.
Is there details on this? This should really be part of the proposal.
The Workgroup Bounties line item is for the broader community to contribute on a bounties basis.
The Consultants / Experts line item is to engage external consultants to review the Constitution and Governance model.
The potential bounties of the full-time/part-time roles are not published as we may find that these roles are better served by a couple of community members instead of a single one, and some may be reduced to align the budget. However, in general, the rate is $80K - $150K per role, based on medium rates. We also don’t have any implied legal structure on how the GWG will operate at this stage.
The Budget is estimated at ±50% since we are in the discovery phase until the end of December. However, during this time, some community members have already been contributing for 2 months.
We have a weekly update on Tuesday’s you can find last week’s report here:
We need to understand that there is no ‘core team’ particularly that this budget is directed to. Any community member is free to be a contributor in GWG and is worthy of the benefits included here if this budget is approved.
