Governance discussion Nov 25, 16:00 UTC

Meeting date: Wednesday, November 25, 2020
Hong Kong: 11:00pm
CEST (Berlin): 5:00pm
UTC Time: 3:00pm
Buenos Aires: 12:00pm
Brooklyn: 11:00am
Houston: 10:00am
Denver: 9:00am
San Francisco: 8:00am
Meeting link:

Ongoing Governance Initiatives


Feel free to add other items below or DM me


There were a couple of interesting ideas on worker onboarding and accountability discussed on the call that I wanted to flag:

  • “Teams” for products and initiatives from Christopher at @1kx. We’ve started to form these naturally, but maybe it makes sense to be more explicit.
  • Budget or quarterly update proposals aimed to increase voter engagement for less active REP holders from @pulpmachina. For REP holders that are not in the minutiae of individual worker proposals, how can they signal and approve/disapprove directions. We had done some budget projections with teams two months ago when we were still ramping up. This should be revisited.
  • KPIs - for products, teams or individuals? How to come up with them and how to hold workers accountable, but not blaming them for things out of their control. @Violet had some thinking on KPIs and @Ezra had done some thinking on a DAO-structure for this in a prior post.
  • “Proof of Work” for worker proposals. When describing who you are and what you’ve done, it’s important to have markers of legitimacy that can be validated by anyone in the community. Links to github/linkedin, vouching from existing DXdao community members and documenting contributions from worker scope.

I think we need to think about a more comprehensive approach to the first 3 bullet points, but I won’t say “working group” :-o

Next step is a forum post on the current status of Teams and Budget projections. I’ll work with Sky on this.


Thank you Chris for the summary.

To expand on the “Teams” idea:

My main motivation is to reduce the individual touchpoints DAO members have with contributors as we have reached a stage where barely anyone can follow who gets hired to do what anymore. On top of that bureaucratic overhead for individual contributors will only increase as DAO members will want to see more accountability. With currently 12-20 paid workers the larger community has little idea who is working on what or whether what they are working on is actually needed.
Therefore introducing “Teams” where one responsible person manages a couple of others and reports back to the community would likely streamline and improve the communication and bureaucratic overhead we’re facing. This team manager would provide a description of what they want to achieve and what budget they need for this (to pay other people and themselves) and then attend community calls and regularly report back with status updates, but during their day-to-day, they can work freely. A team stint should at least last for 3 months, but ideally longer and the budget can be negotiated during each stint.

Teams could form around the following tasks:

  • Marketing & Awareness
  • Governance, Operations, Legal & community management
  • Omen & associated products
  • Swapr & associated products
  • Mesa & IDOs
  • other products

That would be 6 touchpoints for the community vs currently up to 20, with defined responsibilities to regularly update the community on progress.


I am glad you did :slight_smile: I think in some cases separate groups need to be empowered to solve a problem; Governance 2.0 and the bonding curve are good examples. But I think we can avoid setting up a committee as an answer to problems. Instead I think Governance is the right place for the above mentioned issues to be addressed, and if additional time is needed to discuss and work on these then I think additional meetings can be set up as needed, with outputs being first reported on the Governance call and then formalized through a proposal on alchemy.

1 Like