There have been murmurs about a sense of ‘bureaucracy’ in Genesis, perhaps better described as carefulness. The majority of proposals we are seeing right now are about communications/reports or concepts and plans for things that might be built in the future, rep requests, token exchanges, and functional things like ‘slash this rep’ etc. As of writing we have 67 ETH in the balance of Genesis and a lack of proposals that will use this building concrete things for Genesis. Are we missing an opportunity here?
There are definitely layers to this (so-called) problem;
- we want to sensibly spend our funds and try to produce value
- we seem to have had a focus on building according to lean principles (i.e test, prove value, iterate)
- there has been a limited ability to build features and integrations for alchemy due to lack of documentation and road map (this is a top priority of the DAOstack team now)
- we know Genesis Beta is coming
- we want proposers to show they will be accountable
One thought from @liviade was that the lack of accountability at the protocol level is contributing to a need to try and ensure that proposers will deliver value by creating more loopholes up front. ie. ensure proposals are split into distinct parts rather than lumping them together, show how the proposer will deliver short term value and so on
An escrow function (so that with bigger proposals we have the ability to pay some funds up front and the rest when proof of work can be shown) is being prioritised and will be built.
Another thought is that the time for non boosted proposals (29 days) adds to a feeling of slowness, i.e. if you’re burning to start something - it’s annoying to know you will have to wait so long. Please chime in with any other product/protocol factors you think are playing a role here - and if you disagree with this analysis feel free to say so.
I am interested also in hearing thoughts on what is and could be happening outside the protocol or product. Especially around norms and principles we might be inadvertently introducing.
The three original principles of Genesis Alpha are:
- Have an experimental mindset (know this is a sandbox)
- Build for scale
Are we also seeding a principle of ‘thinking little’ by down voting unless proposals fit the format of previously passed proposals and other factors mentioned above? If this is a principle and has become part of the Genesis Alpha culture one side effect is that we signal don’t ‘join/do/act/propose you’ll probably be downvoted’: there are already many entrepreneurs and interested people that join and never write a proposal and some that do spend their valuable time proposing things that don’t meet our offchain norms.
What proposals/ideas/adventures could we be missing out on?
What are your thoughts?