Hey @Bananachain, your post is exactly the kind of adversarial relationship I was talking about above, but honestly, it’s my fault. Reading back, I can see how some of the criticisms I levelled at the current GC could be read as harsh. So let me start by saying sorry if I offended, and also that I think the current cohort of GC has done the DAO a huge service. You took an extremely difficult (IMO unwinnable) job, kept DAO units funded, and experimented on the process. Thank you!
I’ll try to answer all of your questions inline without doing the whole back-and-forth quote thing, which I find pretty exhausting.
RE: concentration of power
Ideally, the multisig and the governance department and the GC would all be stacked with different, capable, willing, and value-aligned contributors. We had an ability to field a team of 21 such contributors during the bull market, but with the bear market, we are effectively all volunteers. We don’t have 21 people who are ready, willing, and able to take this on.
It’s a tradeoff - is it more important to have different “key holders” in each role, or more important to actually keep the DAO running? I lean towards the latter. Everyone has to make their own choice when they vote.
RE: compensation
We both agree the GC needs to be funded more to guarantee quality contributors. My issue with the one-time bonus wasn’t increasing compensation, but the way it was handled. It doesn’t promote resilience, and it encourages grants committee to do things other than review grants. From the post you linked:
RE: optimizations on the GC process
I think reducing the amount of work it takes to be a GC member is of paramount importance. I think reducing the friction for trusted DAO contributors to get the funding they need to pursue the mission is also quite important.
For the coordinape incident funding, I tried something that had never been done, and was given feedback by the GC. The next time I try to get something funded, I can take that feedback and do better. I don’t have any regrets over how the situation went, and I am glad that I was able to get funding for the people who did the investigation.
I think I have answered most of your question, but if I missed something I’m sure you’ll let me know. Thanks again for taking the time!