bDIP-00: Seasonal Funding Process Clarification

Title: bDIP-00: Seasonal Funding Process Clarification

Authors: 0xZFi#4882, Rowan#3669, Icedcool🏴#4947

Working Group: 0xZFi#4882 (Champion), Rowan#3669, Bpetes#9961, links#7868, Icedcool🏴#4947

BanklessDAO Constitution: Link

BDIP SUMMARY

This change is required to enable a timely Season 6 transition. Established procedures through Season 5, including the Season 5 Specification process, were superseded by the Constitution, which was ratified during Season 5. As a result, the governance processes around the season transition require clarification.

This bDIP proposes new wording to the Funding section under Seasonal Budgets to accurately reflect current Seasonal Process. Its passage will allow seasonal funding to continue as intended, given the short timelines leading up to Season 6. Future bDIPs will be developed to further clarify the Constitution in this respect.

It is our intent to minimize the delay of funding disbursement for Season 6. If this bDIP passes, a seven day delay is expected. If this bDIP does not pass, the delay is unknown.

BDIP SPECIFICATION

This is intended to be a Minor Change to the Constitution, as the proposed revision simply aims to provide procedural clarity for the seasonal funding process. As such, the Constitution would be updated to v1.1 if this bDIP passes the Forum and Snapshot votes.

Current Form Proposed Change
Old text in Funding, under Seasonal Budgets: Revision to Funding, under Seasonal Budgets:
New seasons are initiated by all guilds and projects submitting proposals for funding. If these proposals pass Forum approval, they are packaged together in a single seasonal budget approval Snapshot vote. If this budget is approved, then the DAO multi-signers are responsible for issuing disbursements in line with the approved budget. Before new seasons begin, all guilds and projects must submit a funding proposal for the Grants Committee to review. Funding proposals that pass the Grants Committee review process are packaged together in a single seasonal budget for Forum approval. Upon approval on the Forum, the budget will be sent to Snapshot for vote. If this budget is approved on Snapshot, then the DAO multi-signers are responsible for issuing disbursements in line with the approved budget.

NEW DETAILS BELOW – UPDATED BASED ON FEEDBACK

Current Form Proposed Change
Old text in Funding, under Seasonal Budgets: Revision to Funding, under Seasonal Budgets:
New seasons are initiated by all guilds and projects submitting proposals for funding. If these proposals pass Forum approval, they are packaged together in a single seasonal budget approval Snapshot vote. If this budget is approved, then the DAO multi-signers are responsible for issuing disbursements in line with the approved budget. Before new seasons begin, all previously funded guilds 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. If this budget is approved then the DAO multi-signers are responsible for issuing disbursements in line with the approved budget.

EXPECTED IMPACT

Passage of this bDIP would clarify and align the Constitution to current operations and enable the seasonal funding for Season 6. This would establish the operational procedure through which seasonal budget requests are approved going forward.

ACKNOWLEDGING RISKS

If this proposal does not pass on the Forum, we will be holding up the season transition and the funding requests that have already been approved by the Grants Committee. This bDIP would need revision until it passes. Only then could we continue with the seasonal funding round.

NEXT STEPS

This bDIP will be posted to the Forum for 7 days. If it passes on the Forum, it will be posted on Snapshot for 7 days. In order to facilitate timely Season 6 funding, the Season 6 Specification will be posted to Snapshot the day after the bDIP is posted and the votes will run simultaneously. Assuming the bDIP passes, the Season 6 Specification can also pass, and funding will be disbursed.

OLD POLL – NEW POLL BELOW

  • Approve
  • Reject

0 voters

NEW POLL

New Poll
  • Approve
  • Reject

0 voters

3 Likes

Thank you for taking action on this, I really appreciate it and would love to help further refine the text of the Constitution in Season 6.

In my opinion, the new wording is still unclear, or at least ambiguous

  • I suggest it should be “all previously funded guilds and projects” in the first line.
  • Where are these proposals submitted “for the GC to review”? On the Forum, still? If to the Forum, is there any poll required on those, or just the opportunity for feedback?
  • The current requirement to pass Snapshot is 66% in favour. That means if one person votes yes, it passes. This should also be addressed, preferably in this bDIP.
10 Likes

Unfortunately I am not in favour of this proposal. I really appreciate @0xZFi.eth and @Icedcool and everyone else’s efforts in trying to thread the needle while following our current governance docs, but in the end there are a few issues which I just can’t get behind.

  • it feels like I either have to vote for this change I don’t really agree with, or not get seasonal funding. I don’t like governating under the gun. I want to be having thoughtful discussions about governance, not ramming stuff through to release funding.
  • the new text still doesn’t follow our current norms. You’ve added a forum step into the seasonal funding process - why? This will add a week or more to an already tight seasonal funding timeline.
  • in my heart of hearts, I don’t believe projects should be part of seasonal funding at all. I think they should have to get consensus every time they are funded by the DAO

I’m all for changing the constitution (which I believe introduced changes in our governance even though it was not supposed to). I’m all for releasing seasonal funding. But why should I vote against my values to achieve both?

11 Likes

We will definitely need a whole batch of bDIPs in Season 6, so your help would absolutely be appreciated!

Wouldn’t new projects or guilds have to apply as well? If my understanding is incorrect here, then I agree with your suggested change.

Yes, to the Forum. I agree this clarification is necessary.

Good question. Since Grants Committee determines if a funding request passes their review process first, and the funding proposals posted to the Forum are subject to review and revision over the review window, I feel that the real value of this process is the platform for open discussion. If someone votes on day one, but the post gets edited during review, that vote may no longer be accurate after the changes that were made.

I don’t quite follow the one person vote scenario. Can you elaborate? To your suggestion regarding changes to Snapshot voting requirements, I think that would be better presented in a separate bDIP. In writing this proposal, there has been an intentional focus on not combining changes.

2 Likes

I thought the point of this was to expedite the funding for projects and guilds that have already been funded, and that any new projects (or guilds) would have to go through the standard process and actually achieve quorum on their initial proposal.

I meant that if one person only were to vote on the Snapshot proposal, and they vote yes, that is 100% in favour so it passes.
I know this is not very likely, but I wanted to illustrate the point that a Snapshot needs very little engagement to pass.

I do agree with @links comments, made subsequent to mine, that this feels like governance under the gun, but I am not quite sure what the alternative is.

5 Likes

That is 100% fair, and agree.

We are looking to hustle with the minimal viable change to support current operations in governance.
We do want to support a healthy dialog, but also acknowledging timelines.

OH NO, YOUR RIGHT! (tired hustling going on…)

Modified to:

Before new seasons begin, all previously funded guilds 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. If this budget is approved then the DAO multi-signers are responsible for issuing disbursements in line with the approved budget.

I think this most closely aligns to current governance operations, and supports our move through.
@Trewkat , this includes your comment as well.

We updated the above, closed the old poll, and kicked off a new poll for the new proposed change.

You should not, 100% agreed.

7 Likes

This was the piece I was missing. I think your wording would be an appropriate add to this doc.

Ok, gotcha. Yes, I agree with you here, as well. That is outside the scope of this bDIP, but a quorum on Snapshot might be a good issue to address with another bDIP soon.

Get out of my brain. :smiling_face_with_tear:

3 Likes

You shouldn’t have to

1 Like

This concerns me. Voting under duress usually ends up with a worse outcome then dealing with the delay.

I’m going to be that lone wolf and vote my objection. Which sucks :pensive:

I believe season 3 had that random gap in the middle. You may want to head down that same route to have clear communication.

You want to vote for either contigency plans (cranky project owners) or a more succinct auto funding process.

The auto funding could be for the “previously funded amount”

With a new proposal for any extras. That could solve your issue as well. I’ve seen a fair amount of pushback with some new s6 proposals, (some warranted, some, not as sure but I do not know) which ends up having more scrambling occur.

Possibly you could use a stop gap measure and ask all guilds and projects looking for a higher than 30% increase to submit the proposal for funding, and explain the reason for the ask.

3 Likes

He does, we all would because if the proposal fails, funding gets held back (which is implied… not explicit)

Thanks everyone in your attempt to keep the bDAO moving forward in a semi organized and consensus driven fashion. We attempt to do the best we can in this experiment. There are going to be mistakes, bumps in the road and mid-alignments at time but we shall overcome. I have less concerns with the proposed blip as with the required quorum requirements we might have established. Still be observed or are they hit and miss, depending. It will be what it is until it gets changed. The good news for me is as a community we will come together and change and improve as we work together. No one person has control or supreme power or authority.

7 Likes

It is 100% our intention to facilitate a supportive voting environment that enables debate and discussion, with ZERO duress or pressure.

I think this is a good call out that our language could have been cleaner here, and I’m taking that to heart.

We were pretty stressed out during writing, trying to create a bDIP that enabled our moving forward as quickly and cleanly as possible.

Sorry about that. :bowing_man:

6 Likes

As one of the working group members of this rapid draft bDIP, I really resonate with the sentiments and clarifications put forward by @Trewkat and @links – so hard to balance the trade-offs here at the speed we’re trying to move. Appreciate the community trying to figure that out together. To me, there seemed like imperfect solutions all around, a tight timeline, and significant impacts to be managed (e.g seasonal funding and legitimate navigation of our existing governance frameworks). I’m excited to see bDAO find our path together on this explicitly now that this bDIP is up to raise awareness around the issue and tradeoffs. In my eyes the options felt something like:

  1. We could have just ignored and moved forward with the season transition acting in accordance w/ history and assuming that that’s what the constitution says 'cause that was its intention (good because there’s no seasonal transition friction, not ideal because we might be accidentally undermining our constitution if someone read the fine print and called it out as illegitimate transition)

  2. Could move more slowly (good because it feels like we’re not accidentally biasing outcome or setting a dangerous precedent of trying to drive changes like this; bad because it can be painfully slow and it’s uncertain if it could substantially delay seasons (something we felt in past and was non-trivial)

  3. Do as we did here and post a rapid bDIP to quickly surface the issue and a proposed ‘fastest available’ solution path (good because it generates awareness and opens the possibility of a quick resolution if this is the right path and rapid dissent if it isn’t; bad because it could be misinterpreted as governance under duress, generate more confusion, or possibly set a bad precedent)

We chose 3, retrospecting will help us know what the best one was. But I liked that it would be fast to get feedback and if it was a smooth one it could unblock us quickly with minimal impact to our governance legitimacy. I’m sensing we might end up leaning towards path #2 and I like that path too if the community agrees it’s the right one. We win either way; I think only path I strongly object to is #1 because it seems like a lost opportunity to harden governance and our newly minted constitution.

bDAO strong :muscle:
:pray: for participation and feedback path chosen matters not to me if our governance is strong and community is communicating

8 Likes

New shiny things can be stressful. I understand.

1 Like

I think you’ll get there

This is wording is unclear until now

My concern here is the part that says “Funding proposals that pass the Grants Committee review process”. I know this is just a bDIP, but a laid down requirement of the criteria needed for a guild or project proposal is also necessary. For example, you could say the requirement is that the current ask shouldn’t be 30% greater than the previous ask; if it is, it would have to pass through a new quorum. Something of that nature, I feel its very necessary so when a guild or project is writing a proposal for a future season they can have that in mind.

1 Like

This is what I would have suspected would have happened and why I’m so happy about this proposal, even if it has created some tension and messiness. What is being proposed is what we were already doing. It’s just now we have it explicitly stated and discussed.

7 Likes

if we are not voting for the projects every season, then it is centralized around GC.
If i’m not in GC, my comment weight much less then it is when i have the right vote on the proposal.

3 Likes

Snapshot follow up:
https://snapshot.org/#/banklessvault.eth/proposal/0x188955a5f1e169c46e600a60a8d8e3c6449b32776dbd43718d16a96ff121e9ba