Author: @daolexa
Squad: Grants Committee
Purpose: Approval for additional weekly funding.
Date created: June 16th, 2023
Date posted: June 16th, 2023
SUMMARY:
In view of the recent changes and the extended duration of the season, the Grants Committee is seeking additional funding to cover contributors’ compensation related to the tasks that will be undertaken by the Committee members. We are asking to approve additional weekly funding for the Grants Committee members.
BACKGROUND:
The mandate of the Grants Committee (as stated in the Constitution):
The Grants Committee is required to be transparent and communicative with the DAO, such as access to Committee meetings and an opportunity to voice opinions and feedback.
Seasonal funding is distributed to Guilds and Departments paid from DAO Multisig, and Projects are paid from GC Multisig after the funding approval has been granted.
Before new seasons begin, all previously funded guilds, departments and projects must submit a funding proposal to the forum for the Grants Committee to review. Funding proposals that pass the Grants Committee review process are packaged together in a single seasonal budget Snapshot vote.
Organizational units seeking funding over the course of a season will be directed to the Grants Committee upon successfully passing their Forum proposal. The Grants Committee is responsible to evaluate these requests and has the liberty to accept or reject these requests for funds.
Organizational units seeking funding over the course of a season will be directed to the Grants Committee upon successfully passing their Forum proposal. The Grants Committee is responsible to evaluate these requests and has the liberty to accept or reject these requests for funds.
During the last weeks of Season 7, the Committee had to address internal matters and underwent a change in its membership. As a result, the request for additional funding was not considered a priority at that time.
GOALS FOR SEASON 8:
The Grants Committee acknowledges the previous communication and other issues that have arisen between the Committee and other Guilds. Therefore, we are fully dedicated to finding solutions and improving communication with Guilds and projects. Additionally, we aim to establish streamlined processes that will enhance the efficiency of our work and funding procedures.
Moving forward, the GC will maintain its weekly meetings with projects every Friday at 1 PM UTC. We will also keep the DAO updated on any internal changes and modifications to our processes.
FUNDING REQUEST:
Additional funding requested is:
Each member: 3,846 $BANK/week
Leads: 6,250 $BANK/week
POLL:
Do you agree with the weekly allocation of funds to the GC?
It’s not the Grants Committee who is responsible for disbursing these funds because it’s not mid-season (or seasonal) funding.
You were on the Grants Committee when this was passed - if you feel the GC should have released these funds, why didn’t you release the funds?
The Grants Committee is paid a flat rate per season, and then the season length was increased from 12->16 weeks. This cohort of the Grants Committee decided to move to a weekly rate to ensure this problem doesn’t happen again.
Does that reasoning seem unfair to you?
The GC doesn’t have the funds to do this (those funds are held in the DAO root multisig). The funds the GC hold are for project/dept/guilds.
If you run a coordinape and send me the results, I would be happy to create a tx as a DAO multisigner though. I know this seems pedantic, but it’s quite important to me to have strong boundaries between each DAO unit.
Each member: 3,846 $BANK/week
Leads: 6,250 $BANK/week
It’s on weekly basis.
This is a bit harsh and an overstatement. We do understand issues with previous members and the lack of communication and other elements, what we intend to work these seasons.
The GC has 5 new members as of this season.
Actually i was not in the GC in S7 and despite me reminding the GC in S7 to disburse these funds, there was no resolution.
I understand, but this change was made Snapshot way before S8 even started. I see the common thread here being that ‘we are just fixing mistakes from the past’, and this is not the first time this problem is coming to bite us.
I’d suggest that the GC implements measures this season so that a rollover of contributors between seasons does not affect basic operations.
Maybe check with the season 7 GC members and get a response from them, so we can resolve this asap.
Yep, very true, something we are working on
Currently discussing the 100k funding question in the GC call on Discord: @Jengajojo this doesnt fall under the GC. For the additional funding that was granted, please have a talk with the multisig as that would fall under their purview.
I don’t see a reason why anyone would have any issues behind doing this so I’ll vote yes.
Grants committee has a tall task it seems
I have a few questions out of curiosity.
Did the budget for season 8 GC get approved by season 7 grants committee or season 8 grants committee?
Is this more of a “eek, the problem looks worse than we thought so we need more bank?”
Are there unanswered issues dealing with precious GCs?
Would this have been a priority for season 7 or season 8?
That being said, this is not me doubting that the funds are worth it.
Asking for more funds for grants committee doesn’t seem terribly problematic to me. Just curious as to what led to it, and why it wasn’t considered ahead of time.
(My guess is that there problems were bigger that originally thought)
It’s because the season length changed. The people who changed the season length did not take into account the effect on the GC, which is paid seasonally. The change amounted to a 25%-33% decrease of GC compensation.
Without going into details - you remember and were involved in certain events of the last weeks of s7 (the gov attack, etc), so this was not really a priority for GC at the time. Weeks went from 12 to 16, and was not discussed within the GC towards the end.
Thank you for the clarification - so this proposal is to add 4 week’s worth of compensation for each GC member, due to the increased season length, rather than to change the weekly rate payable to GC for each of the 16 weeks? If you had included the total additional amount sought this would have avoided several of the comments here.
I take issue with the statement you made about the change in season length:
The people who changed the season length did not take into account the effect on the GC, which is paid seasonally. The change amounted to a 25%-33% decrease of GC compensation.
This was very much taken into account and other DAO org units responded by adjusting their season 8 proposals to align with the season length. I understand that GC was pretty busy at the end of last season, but please don’t imply that other people are responsible for creating the shortfall when you clearly also state that it was not considered a priority to update the GC budget.
Lastly, Season 8 is in fact 15 weeks and a gap week. If you’re asking to be paid for the full 16 weeks, I assume that means there will be a GC call and active communication from GC members during the gap week as well?
Thought the “additional “ is clear enough, and that it doesn’t imply “change of the existing”.
As you can see the ask is WEEKLY - is if GC adds 3 weeks of work, it will get paid for 3 weeks.
If GC adds 4 weeks, it will get paid for additional 4 weeks.
Seems logical and easy to track. FYI, this is the breakdown of what each member and lead get already, just stated weekly.
It also helps if we have any other season length changes, so GC has the approved budget and doesn’t have to go through the same process (ofc unless an ACTUAL change is requested).
I am unsure of the reason of your tone and the comment, but I will respond nicely anyways.
Last weeks of the s7 was the issue with the gov attack that affected GC heavily, as you may reasonably assume, so no - it wasn’t a priority. GC has 5 new members this season, so if you have complaints - I would suggest you take it up with the previous cohort and discuss the reasons with them.
I was bluntly transparent with why the funding was not requested on time. I am sure you can appreciate that.
Furthermore, GC is not asking for anything less or more than the other units have already received.
In truth there is a gap in our governance around GC compensation. It used to sit in the seasonal spec, but the constitution doesn’t say anything about it. So I retract my statement that the bDIP authors didn’t take this into account - there was nothing to change on the constitution regarding this.
As part of this work we need to understand where GC compensation is documented. If it’s the seasonal budgeting proposal, then the GC can effectively set their own compensation in an omnibus bill - not good. It also seems too micro for the constitution itself. Perhaps a GC handbook section that requires a snapshot poll to change?
Super For