It also seems fitting to call it a brain dump to follow up on the brain dumps.
Far too much time, resources and contributor efforts revolves around the fact that the current BanklessDAO Constitution does not accurately represent a good majority of the way that BanklessDAO currently and previously has operated. This has directly impacted the ability of the DAO to grow in countless ways. It has also inhibited education and understanding of our Governance. Standard operational items have now turned complex, needing bDIPs submitted to correct simple wording.
The current Constitution has additionally incorrectly captured quorum and voting methods and failed to mention that each season, quorum & voting requirements can be updated as part of the Seasonal Spec.
“Introduce a canonical consolidation and crystallization of our org structure and governance processes”
51% of the community voted that this self proclaimed “bible” was not ready
Constitution and bDIP standard 2.0 by 0xJustice, was then seen two weeks later in June 2022.
The Season 5 community vote produced a vote of 90% in favor to:
- “Make the necessary changes to the Season 5 Specification to allow the GSE to implement the proposed bDAO Constitution and bDIP Standard”
The BanklessDAO Season 5 Specification ratified that necessary change as:
- “Governance Solutions Engineers will have the ability to change or replace the Seasonal Specification, subject to forum and/or Snapshot voting in order to implement the BanklessDAO Constitution & Community Handbook”
The snapshot vote for the Season 6 Specification and Community-Indicated Direction then was
- “reformatted to adhere to the procedure of governance changes as defined by our newly codified Constitution.”
Unless I am missing context, I do not see where the GSEs implemented the Constitution.
The Season 6 Specification left the community questioning why the GSEs there was no implementation from the GSEs. It was also noted that there were no GSEs anymore.
The only other publication from the GSE’s was the GSE Deliverables by 0xJustice as “an update and summarized status report on the current GSE initiative (from my perspective).”
Which does not include implementation of the constitution. It does, however, outline that the GSE Program did not follow their mandate, scope of work or produce the deliverables which were explicitly outlined.
Below is a compilation of
With the vote: to abide by the quorum, voting, education, and presentation guidelines set forth within this proposal.
This vote then enacted:
Quorum & Voting Requirements
Quorum requirements are formalities to achieve sufficient consensus. Culturally, we should be thinking beyond quorum. If a proposal reaches quorum and voting requirements, it is your responsibility to capture feedback and dissent in order to achieve better alignment. If someone raises a good point or you gauge sufficient disagreement, go back to the drawing board and incorporate that feedback. We are a DAO, we move together. Ape strong together.
As such, authors will be expected to have reasonably attempted to incorporate feedback. as part of the passing requirements.
Below is a table for quorum, timeline, and voting thresholds. Numbers are a weighted average 7 of the results from the previous post.
Each season, quorum & voting requirements can be updated as part of the Seasonal Spec
Snapshot posts must always include a link back to the the proposal’s forum posts
Snapshot voting options must be impartial. Something as simple as “Approve” and “Deny” is sufficient in most cases.
Over 1 year has gone by. I don’t even know that we could begin to total the number of hours that has been spend working on quorum removal forum posts and quorum removal snapshot votes. Even once removed, the information that quorum could be set within the seasonal spec was lost - and not captured by the current constitution.
Below is a compilation of
Gov SEs and Working Groups
The GSE’s are:
Governance-minded DAO members elected to spec out a comprehensive solution to mission-critical DAO infrastructure challenges.
These members are not to operate in silos and make decisions on behalf of the DAO.
They are to work with the DAO to find the optimal solution by:
progressively designing solutions
presenting them to the DAO
One method of working with the DAO is to create a working group around these two problem spaces.
- As such, Gov SEs will have to work publicly in these working groups.
- Part of their responsibility will be coordinating these working groups, somewhere between a Guild Coordinator and Project Manager.
Deliverables are defined as:
- A thorough and community-aligned specification in order to update our governance procedures and create room for growth.
- A close comparable is: The original Season Specification that continues to act as an important cornerstone in our governance model that still serves as an important guiding document for the DAO to this day.
- This deliverable would have to be in its final form, if not extremely close.
- As such, community feedback must already be included.
I want to acknowledge that this community feedback can take time but if Draft 1 is done properly, much of the community consensus will already be aligned and the scope of work should be limited to our most existential threats:
- Contributor Alignment
- Strategic Prioritization
Refining the Guest Pass, L1, and L2 system to be more inclusive.
- Includes ways to offboard contributors that no longer meet the activity/recognition threshold
Create a compensation framework that can be updated and:
- Define global compensation that standardizes compensation rules for the entire DAO
- Provides guidance on letting projects/guild define local compensation.
- Envisions a new incentive model that rewards long-term contributors that stick with the DAO for longer periods of time.
Work with guilds to standardize guild roles and Coordinape rounds
Work with guild Talent Scouts and First Quest to identify challenges and better retain talent entering DAO
- Model and present various strategic directions the DAO can take (present to DAO for feedback)
- Outline a business plan based on an identified strategic model
- Create an evaluation framework based on the identified strategy to help the DAO make strategic decisions with treasury and grant funding
- Create a new evaluation process that optimizes for both community consensus and responsible decision making (will likely deprecate the Grants Committee as it stands)
- Design a system that actually measures the output of funded projects and incorporates those findings into the evaluation process
- Balancing funding cost centers with things that generate revenue or token appreciation”
I do understand that the GSE Program was given quite the task. However, if the program was executed as it was laid out to be, I do believe that the deliverables that were set could have been delivered.
Instead, it appears that only 1 GSE chose to create an entirely new constitution that overlooked the Constitution that was in the process of being worked on, that was introduced here and seen again here, and simply pieced together semi-accurate information. Additionally, if you look at the working document, you will see that there are countless outstanding comments, comments marked as “resolved” that were not addressed and comments that were addressed by 0xJustice with only an additional comment of why he felt what was being commented on should not be changed, and marked as resolved.
To me, this sounds as though the GSE was the silo and did make all of the decisions.
This is the exact opposite of the criteria that was specified.
Breaking this down a little easier to digest:
|Deliverable||Was it Delivered by GSE||Delivered/Being worked on|
|Refining the Guest Pass, L1, and L2 system to be more inclusive.||No||Tokenomics currently working on this.|
|Create a compensation framework that can be updated||No||Senad and iSpeakNerd worked on and presented a model|
|Work with guilds to standardize guild roles and Coordinape rounds||No||This has been funded as a workstream out of Ops|
|Work with talent scouts and First Quest to identify challenges and better retain talent entering DAO||No||This is being worked on by bDAO onboarding improvements|
|Design a system that actually measures the output of funded projects and incorporates those findings into the evaluation process||No||This is being worked on by Grants Committee|
|Balance cost centers with things that generate revenue or token appreciation.||No||This is being worked on by Grants Committee|
|Create an evaluation framework based on the identified strategy to help the DAO make strategic decisions with funding and grants.||No||This is being worked on by Grants Committee|
|Outline a business plan model based on an identified strategic model||No||This was worked on by Samantha J - Guilds as Professional Models|
As I was gathering all of this info and looking through previous forum posts, it became clear that History is repeating itself in terms of the needs of the DAO.
To also display this in a clear method:
There are about a half dozen more of these examples, but you probably see my point.
See, as a Grants Committee Member, I have spent more time digging through previous forum posts and snapshot votes, that I haven’t had time to focus on what matters. And that is moving forward.
In order to move forward as a community, we should go back to basics and decide our priorities for the future together. This will align us as a community, minimize confusion and allow us to focus on what is important.
Doing this could solve:
Seasonal Projects - BANK allocation (What we agree to focus on as a community gets allocated BANK, for that season)
Wasted BANK- If each Guild/Department/Project had 1 coordinator, then every thing that needed to get done could be bountied out to those qualified to do it. There would be no uncertainty around what needed to be done and nothing would fall to the wayside because of not wanting to step on toes because it was someone else’s responsibility.
Overhead - If everything is bountied out, then we would only need 1 multisig. In turn, this would solve the issues of wallet rot
Clarity around seasonal BANK distribution There wouldn’t be a need for it, if 1 multisig distributed BANK, we would also reduce frauds seen with Coordinape
In fact, I think this would empower us to effectively bring back and use Coordinape as it is intended to be used.
UtilityI also think it would enable us to work collaboratively, together and use the BANK token as intended, within our community. For intra Guild/Department/Project needs from other Guilds/Departments/Projects.
Does it make sense for us to spend a tremendous amount of our time and effort writing b-DIPS to correct/capture what the Constitution as it is has failed to?
Or does it make sense for us to go back to basics and to start this process over.
- Starting with the original Season Specification, that will strategically align the contributors priorities.
- Additionally having each Guild and Department write their own Governing documents.
- It seems we could solve another issue by having Seasonally Funded Projects be projects that are necessary to carry out the priorities set in the Seasonal Spec.
- Gather feedback and gauge the community’s sentiments.
- If the sentiment is to change the governing structure:
- Draft a Proposal or bDIP, depending on which one is needed per the community’s sentiment.
- Draft Snapshot vote.
- Gather feedback from contributors on what their goals are for BanklessDAO in the upcoming Season.
- Those goals can then be voted on by contributors in the community vote, with the top (number needed here) becoming the upcoming Seasons priorities.
- Undecided, I will provide more context in there comments below
- Undecided, I will provide more context
- Undecided I will provide more context
- Undecided I will provide more context
- Undecided, Please provide more context
- Undecided, Please provide more context