I actually agree with most of what you have written here
To focus on this part – That will be the focus of my next posts, which I hope to clear time for soon
Along the lines of
Quarterly worker / team contribution proposals with goals and KPIs (accountability)
Resource allocation to
Governance – Gov 2.0, DXD token models and shipping the best on-chain governance products
Protocol operations/ collateral – communications, bizdev, Dev management, auditing
Transition to an “spinout” DAO model, grow products internally and spin them out to independant entities which are still in the DXdao family (with DXdao accountability and contribution)
This first attempt will happen with Nimi
Adjusted several things in the above proposal text after lots of great feedback here on the forum, on the governance discussion and in Discord.
The text is updated but wanted to call out the adjustments:
Circulating market cap - defines DXD circulating supply as DXD that is “outside DXdao treasury or DXdao-owned contracts on Ethereum, Gnosis Chain, Arbitrum or any DXdao-sanctioned base”. This means DXD compensation will only count towards circulating supply when it vests, but all DXD through these buybacks would contract circulating supply. This would lower current circulating supply to 36,104
Treasury NAV (assets) - creates an adjustable NAV Contribution Percentage on “additional treasury assets outside of ETH, staked ETH, stablecoins and Swapr LP deposits” and assigns 25% for all of these assets. This affects the $$$ value the SWPR, ENS, GNO in the treasury contribute to the Treasury NAV
Adjustments to the spacing of the orders. Incorporated @0xSpicySoup feedback and text that was used from DXD Buyback #6 to allow for make up volume if orders are missed.
Appreciate the follow up and definitely moving in the right direction.
However I still feel if we’re introducing a carve out from Treasury NAV for runway, then that runway needs to be core operating expenses only and not inclusive of discretionary spend like travel stipends, grants and sponsorships. Is that already the case with the 290k monthly burn rate or not?
If not and we use a much larger and inclusive runway figure, then DXD holders need to have a more direct say in these discretionary expenses going forward. Otherwise we’re setting up a situation which pits DXD holders against contributors which is counterproductive. e.g. DXD value dropping (via lower NAV calculation) because REP holders deciding to spend another $100k sponsoring e-sports teams, or approving significant grants to our own contributors.
Also not to keep harping on but also I’d still like to see the proposal text adjusted to include a firm commitment to buyback frequency and to signal intent to renew the proposal once finished unless an alternative has been implemented from the DXD working group.
The $290k is inclusive of all costs. At this point, there is no categorization of ‘core operating expense’ and ‘discretionary spending’. You can see the breakdown of these in in the budget post from last month. This $290k number can change with whatever the current estimated burn is. Filing the last 1.5 months of expenses now, so will have an updated number soon.
Also, in terms of events/discretionary things, most of those costs have actually already occurred, because contributors have already requested stipends. For Colombia, DXdao has already paid out 50% of the expenses. And outside of Bogota, there are not any plans for any DXdao events for the next 6 months.
Regardless, the $290k number is not set in stone and should be adjusted as necessary. And, yes, i think it would be great to have DXD holders participate in the discretionary decision making. That’s why we do these expense reports and budgets so DXD (and REP) holders can give input on how the funds are spent.
Of course, we need a more formal governance mechanism to actually include DXD votes, which is absolutely critical for DXdao’s long-term health. But that is something being worked on in the short-term, and then of course unified governance in Gov 2.0
So 290k figure is inclusive. I understand those discretionary expenses (at least discretionary imo; travel expenses, grants and sponsorship) are mostly already incurred.
I’m not suggesting we cut them, but opposed to having them included in the carve out from NAV. Any new carve out introduced should be minimal, not maximal.
That and adding a commitment to buyback frequency and signaling continuation beyond this proposal until an alternative is implemented.
It’s important to be mindful of those 100%. As Chris mentioned once on a community call, the collective is digitally-native and remote-only, there are no office and office-adjacent expences associated with the DAO’s operations, which is a tremendous cost-save sparing the treasury throughout the years. On the other hand, marketing is something everyone would agree the community needs more of, and since we’ve always been reluctant to go down the web2 ad purchasing for promotion, a real organic way of networking and spreading the word about our developments has recently been discovered in the face of attending conferences, and not for the sake of attending, but with attempts of strategically leveraging those through talks, workshops, events, hackathon…
Nonetheless, certain initiatives that got funded in the past year probably wouldn’t have had the same chance if they were reviewed and voted on today, the mindset has certainly shifted moving forward, but it doesn’t mean that we should go down the path of cutting allowance when budgeting for following quarters. It won’t all be spent, and it will just roll over.
Note: the Treasury NAV calculations were updated in the text above before submission. There was also a slight adjustment because in a previous version the price of ETH was hardcoded. This has been updated.
