Reconcile Grants Election with Season 1 Spec

Archive
1

Title: Reconcile Grants Election with Season 1 Spec
Authors: frogmonkee#6855
Date Created: July 1st, 2021
Date Posted: July 1st, 2021

Summary

This proposal reconciles the Grant Committee Election with the Season 1 Spec.

BACKGROUND

There are some procedural discrepancies between the Grants Committee Election and the Season 1 Spec. Namely:

  • If 8+ candidates pass the discord gate there is a runoff and the seven candidates with the highest votes move on to a snapshot vote. Voters will be allowed to place four votes.

However, I have been operating under the assumption that the top 7 votes of the candidates become Grant members WITHOUT the Snapshot vote.

MISSION & VALUES ALIGNMENT

We need to do consensus and governance right!

SPECIFICATION

I see two options going forward:

Option 1

  • We accept the outcome of the forum vote and keep @0xLucas @Kouros @Above Average Joe @Grendel :black_flag: @Icedcool @nonsense :black_flag: @jameswmontgomery as the Grant Committees and proceed with setting up a multi-sig.

Option 2

  • Take the vote to Snapshot

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Not applicable

BRAND USAGE

Not applicable

SUCCESS METRICS OR KPIS

Not applicable

Governance Proposal Template

Proposals

May 6

1 / 2

May 6

May 6

0x_Lucas

6

May 6

Proposals for Bankless DAO initiatives and funding.
Please use this template.

Title: [CONCISE TITLE - KEEP CLEAN & NO PROPOSAL NUMBERS]
Authors: [DISCORD HANDLES w ID]
Squad: [DISCORD HANDLES & SPECIFY CHAMPION]
Date Created: [ADD CREATED DATE]
Date Posted: [ADD DATED POSTED TO DISCOURSE]

Summary

Sum up this proposal in a few bullet points or sentences.

BACKGROUND

Why are you making this proposal? What problem or opportunity does this proposal target? What are the driving factors behind why you think this is a good idea?

MISSION & VALUES ALIGNMENT

How does this project help the DAO achieve its mission and align with it’s values?

SPECIFICATION

Explain the project in detail. You’re expected to have done your homework and the more exact numbers and implementation details, the more likely the proposal will be approved. Include squad details, including any positions that have yet to be filled (e.g., you need to add someone from the dev guild to the squad).

You can get creative with the formatting of this section. For example, feel free to break it up into multiple specifications, include a project plan, or explain how the project will achieve its objectives in some other way.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Include details about funding requirements. You must include a detailed breakdown that explains how the funds will be allocated. Funding will not be approved for proposals without a funding breakdown. This is where the squad can request rewards for their expected contributions to the project, including any work done to scope the project and create the proposal.

This section only needs to be completed for projects that are requesting funding. If you are requesting seasonal funding, add a “Requesting Season [season #] Funding” tag to the project on the DAO project page prior to the snapshot vote for the seasonal projects.

BRAND USAGE

If the project will use the Bankless DAO brand outside the DAO, explain in detail how the brand will be used and add a “Bankless Brand” tag to the project.

SUCCESS METRICS OR KPIS

Vote and either continue with the grants committee or verify on Snapshot

  • Option 1
  • Option 2

0 voters

1 Like
2

I voted option 1 so we can move forward with getting the Grants Committee spun up and start distributing Guild funds.

Snapshot is a formality at this point and would only slow us down.

3 Likes
3

New system, new process, who dis?

It’s a hiccup. It happens. We don’t need to let it slow us down, we will do it right next time!

2 Likes
4

We can for sure go to option 1 in my opinion . Cheers !

5

would be good to have better clarity on when things can be decided for the DAO at the Discourse level, and when required to move to Snapshot. If we intend Discourse to just be a gating mechanism and not an actual official decision mechanism, then might need to explicitly consider whether to set a precedence here out of expediency - or how to limit the precedent value of this one-off.

3 Likes
6

I voted option 2.

  1. Partially because I missed the discourse vote. Snapshot votes get my attention more than discourse votes do.
  2. Partially because I think precedents are important, and I don’t see how a snapshot vote would slow us down more than a few days. That said, I’m not one of the individuals waiting on Grant funding.
  3. And partially because I wonder about non-BanklessDAO members influencing discourse votes.
    How likely is it that non-BanklessDAO members voted in the discourse vote? By sending it to a snapshot vote, aren’t we ensuring that only BANK holders get to officially approve the grants multisig holders?
1 Like
7

I voted for 2 because I thought this sounded like a rather important decision to make and to “formalise” on chain. Just to again make sure that $BANK tokens are being put on the table to show consensus.

Because right now votes in the forum might not be $BANK holders and it also doesn’t show the “weight”.

1 Like
8

I also voted for option 2 for essentially the same reasons listed by @MantisClone. While I do agree that it’s probably a formality in this specific case, I also think we should have a clearer process to establish what needs to be decided by Snapshot and what doesn’t.

2 Likes
9

Would like an answer for Point 3.

Though this does look like a formality at this point, it would be good to see this done correctly.

1 Like
10

Also voted for number 2. Generally, with governance, when a subset of the community wants to slow down because

  1. they lack information or
  2. they want to honor the community’s values or process
    it’s good to show that subset of the community that its comfort and inclusion is more important than the issue at hand. If the issue is genuinely urgent, you can override these procedural or informational requests; but if it isn’t urgent, you risk losing social and community capital out of an impatience that benefits nobody.

Also, I know there was a thread going elsewhere about whether the Level One tag was being overused; but, as a lurker, I can say it was cool to actually be invited to vote on something and told that it matters.

Baby communities need to keep re-iterating invitations (Again and again and again) to increase the likelihood that more members become active. fwiw.

2 Likes
11

I voted option 1 so we can move forward with getting the Grants Committee spun up and start distributing Guild funds.

12

Hey folks, we’re going to move this over to snapshot. Even though Option 1 has a supermajority, out of respect for the numerous people that have expressed concerns, we will open a snapshot vote until 23:59 EDT Sunday July 4th.

4 Likes
13

That’s what I was going to say, personally I’d support option 1 but there are too many people who voted for a snapshot to ignore.

3 Likes
14

Option 1 seems pretty appropriate. I voted option 1

15

I voted Option 2 as well because it isn’t clarified yet what qualifies things that should be voted on chain. Also true that in Discourse, we do not have the capability to distinguish if the all voters are actual $BANK holders.

16

I feel the same way. I also voted Option 1.