Restructuring and Refocus | Phase 1: Low Hanging Fruit

The “Alternative Restructuring and Refocus Process [Signal Proposal]”, henceforth called simply “Restructuring and Refocus”, has now passed with a strong 27.44% in favour and 0.00% opposed; we also saw DXD holders engage and support through chats, calls and the forum.


DXdao recognizing its problems and aiming to integrate processes to solve them is a massive step in the right direction. This thread is being prepared to propose an initial, non-contentious, batch of actions that DXdao can take RIGHT NOW, classified as "Phase 1: Low Hanging Fruit. 0xKLOM.eth will be recommending an initial batch of changes from the initial forum thread and aiming to reach a soft off-chain consensus on them through DAOtalk polls. This process is open; disagreements and alternate forum posts are encouraged if the content of this thread is not satisfactory, and the final signal proposal can be prepared and submitted by anyone in the community.

Phase 1: Low Hanging Fruit

Phase 1 represents the conditions that need expedited and are least contentious, taking a step back to assess the easiest to solve challenges, so they aren’t delayed by the governance process. Therefore, this phase should be utilized to take immediate action on subjects unlikely to require significant discussion, greatly benefiting from a quick governance process.

The governance process, including discussion and building off of the initial draft laid out in the “Restructuring and Refocus – An Alternative Proposal” thread, should take place immediately after the passage of the “Alternative Restructuring and Refocus Process” Signal Proposal. The goal should be to agree and execute Phase 1 as soon as feasibly possible, with a proposed deadline for passage by September 30th, 2022. However, DXdao should aim to pass phase 1 before this date.

Link to thread

The goal of this phase is to pass through some immediate changes and commitments that affect structure and budget. The below polls can be voted on by anyone in the forum, including both DXD and REP holders, until Friday the 23rd of September. If any of these polls are contentious, their discussion should be moved to Phase 2 in order to not delay the governance process on Phase 1. Any further discussions, suggestions, or changes in the comment section should be taken into account for the final signal proposal.

DXdao should aim for an on-chain proposal passage by September 30th, 2022 as indicated in the signal proposal. Provided a signal proposal hasn’t been created using the results of this forum thread (or any others) once the polls have concluded, 0xKLOM.eth will post it’s own interpretation of the signal proposal by no later than Monday, September the 26th at 2000 UTC.

Additional context for each of these actions can be found in the initial forum thread if desired.


Should DXdao limit its event budget to $150k annually
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

Commitment to better event justification and expenditure, with better processes for the selection of individuals at each event. For example, focusing on Swapr team in the event of a Swapr push. Current expenditure is roughly $404,196.

$150k was chosen as an equitable target from the original restructuring proposal and should be treated as a limit that requires additional governance processes (and amendments to the budget) to exceed.


Should DXdao limit its auditing budget to $150k annually, with additional spending requiring financial justification?
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

Default Audit budget of $150k, with additional spending requiring a separate proposal. Audits should be prioritized to contracts handling DXdao funds. Audits for products that are yet to attain traction will require additional justification.

Calls / Productivity

Should DXdao aim to decrease the length of public weekly calls to 30m where appropriate?
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

This is a case-by-case basis, but if approved, should push call leads to reduce their public weekly call length from 1h to 30m wherever possible. This does not have any effect on if calls run over their targetted time, and are expected to often. Call attendance requirements should be set by these leads as well, so contributors know precisely which calls need to be attended and which can be avoided to focus on contribution.

For the purposes of any upcoming proposal, bi-weekly calls at the current length accomplish the same goal as a reduction from 60m to 30m calls weekly.

Tighter Onboarding

Should DXdao place a temporary restriction on new contributor proposals below level 6 until Phase 2 has passed?
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

This would not disallow contributors below level 6 outright, but rather require an on-chain vote BEFORE approving a trial period.

DXD Holders

Important Note: Polls cannot be adjusted after responses have started collecting. It has been brought to my attention by several individuals that there is separate discussions to be had surrounding the 20-35% target, some pushing for more, some less. In light of this, this poll should instead be interpreted as:

Should DXdao deploy the DXD guild with 4% REP, and commit to further governance discussions to scale this REP percentage higher following deployment?

Should DXdao deploy the DXD guild with 4% REP, aiming to scale to roughly 20-35% following deployment?
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

More guilds context here. This REP would be given to the DXD guild wherever DXdao governance contracts are deployed, primarily Mainnet and Gnosis Chain currently.


Should DXdao immediately disengage from contractors?
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

I strongly anticipate this to be a “No”, but have kept this poll for the purposes of mentioned off-chain consensus. You can read disagreements to this notion here. Current contractor expense is roughly $432,000 annually.

If not pushed through Phase 1, I anticipate this discussion to flourish in Phase 2.


The above changes, minus contractor disengagement, will have the following budget impact:

  • Annual expenditure: $3,550,464 → $3,296,268
  • Stablecoin Runway: 3.26 Years → 3.51 Years

If the contractor disengagement were to have consensus for Phase 1, the budget impact would instead look like:

  • Annual expenditure: $3,550,464 → $2,864,268
  • Stablecoin Runway: 3.26 Years → 4.05 Years

You can find more information on the budget in the original forum thread, or in @PowersJune 17th, 2022 (Expenses) and July 25th, 2022 (Budget).


[Note: this post was drafted after further discussions related to these topics so includes some insights learned in that process]

This post is helpful to push forward the discussion. However, as I was trying hard to answer each poll, I kept encountering many questions specific to the details of each question.

I was thinking there could be a third answer for each poll “It Depends/Maybe” as the details around each question affect the answer.

For example,

Should DXdao limit its event budget to $150k annually
→ It depends. If people are still going to show up to events in the space on their own dime, then it is probably ok. Some of us go to events and pay the cost ourselves often. It is very important for DXdao to have a presence at these events. Will people show up at their own cost? If no one shows up, this likely hurts DXdao and its products.
Where did $150k come from exactly? Is it better to have a smaller representative presence at many different events? Or a very large presence at one big event for the year (ie Devcon) where the team can connect and build relationships?

Should DXdao limit its auditing budget to $150k annually, with additional spending requiring financial justification?
→ It depends. If we have products that we’ve built with approval from the DAO (meaning the DAO has justified there is expectation to lead to large net positive returns in the medium to long run), and the product needs auditing, then the product should likely have some type of audit. We could experiment with newer, more economical crowdsourced types of audits versus top firms.
We could launch products without audits, but that is far less responsible. Expected audit costs should be built into the DAO’s approval to move forward with a product.
If we are launching a bunch of quicker MVPs, and the need for an audit is less clear at first, we could make this very clear to the user, have bug bounties, and be ready to seek an audit if traction grows. This process would obviously have a big delay.
DXdao having its own money in a product (which it likely will for all its products) doesn’t really alter the decision much on whether a product needs an audit.
If we expect our governance products to gain wide adoption, they likely need audits. If we expect our future versions of Swapr to gain massive TVL, they likely need audits.

Should DXdao aim to decrease the length of public weekly calls to 30m where appropriate?
→ Maybe. We should only have calls for the length of time in order to cover what is needed. We shouldn’t “go for” one hour, if we don’t need one hour. Many calls, we may need the one hour, sometimes more. In most cases, we stop at one hour even though we have more to cover to be respectful of people’s time. I don’t recall times where we hang around a call until we reach the 1 hour mark if we don’t have important things to cover.
As an alternative, I think doing a comprehensive call once every two weeks is better than a shorter tight call each week. For example, DXvoice, DXbiz, ContributorX, Community Call, DXdev calls as examples - all could be a full one hour agenda every two weeks. If we are taking focus away from something else, then might as well make it worth it.
The other important thing would be sharpening who is on each call. Most people do not need to attend all the calls. We can aim to make this much more efficient. But if most calls are only every two weeks, then it is ok for more people to join and catch up and agree on paths forward.
As you reaffirmed, it would likely make sense for DXgov Weekly Gathering to remain weekly. This one could potentially target 30 mins. Sometimes it could be only 15 mins. Who should attend it is also up for discussion.

Should DXdao place a temporary restriction on new contributor proposals below level 6 until Phase 2 has passed?
→ Not necessarily. If this contributor is a good positive value add for the DAO then level might not matter. This value should be accounted for in the different levels scale.
Implementing that new contributors should get approval prior to starting a trial is a new change and good idea. This could be for all Levels - above or below level 6 is kind of arbitrary. This solves both issues at the same time.

Should DXdao deploy the DXD guild with 4% REP, aiming to scale to roughly 20-35% following deployment?
→ Probably. Starting with 4% REP to see how it even works seems like a good start. Knowing a final target today is very hard, as this system would be very new. At first thought, 20-35% seems to be a major change to DXdao risk in general. Would this be on Mainnet or Gnosis Chain or both?

Should DXdao immediately disengage from contractors?
→ It depends. If we have products that we are building with approval from the DAO (with large expected potential returns already factored in), and resources are needed and we can’t find these resources directly, then contractors paid only in USD-stables may be the best, most efficient option.

I think working through some of these questions/topics and hearing different perspectives would allow the community to make more informed decisions.

1 Like

Same rationale for both these points. Having a cap for event spend and a soft cap for audits forces us to be more judicious. To evaluate what’s needed, what’s the potential return, what should be prioritised, etc.

Having a small presence at several events or a large presence at one event are both good options. Having a large presence at many or an open invitation to any and all to attend at the DXdao’s expense is not ideal. A cap ensures those decisions are made.

Likewise with a limited budget for audits, products that don’t have potential for revenue or aren’t critical for DAO operations are unlikely to get auditing spend and that would help us narrow our focus. If audit spend is already fully allocated and we have either a great new opp for revenue or an urgent DAO need, that can always be proposed with an additional justification and passed on chain.


I hear what you are saying but…

DXdao spends money via on-chain proposal each time.

Why not use even more effective logic?

For audits, DXdao should always use very smart, efficient thinking when assessing audits for all products. If this hasn’t happened in the past, then let’s start doing it now. A cost versus expected reward analysis each time.

This current proposed logic makes it sound like:
Step 1): Spend $150k loosely on audits (without thinking very critically)
Step 2): Once the $150k is spent, start being much more critical of what audits to do.

I am also proposing using more efficient methods for auditing and audit-equivalent strategies.

Why not make the audit “soft cap” $0, and then have DXdao do critical analysis of whether an audit makes sense for a specific scenario? And look at the cost versus expected reward analysis.

We could reduced spend another $150k.

I mean, a $0 dollar cap is just no cap at all. And not $150k savings. I get that its a matter of framing.

I think we’re falling back into the whole “perfect is the enemy of good” trope when it comes to making changes.

Say there’s a cap now at $150k. By all means lets lay out what audit spend is currently needed, whether it exceeds that cap and then assess each one on the merits and decide which to prioritise; and whether any are justified in exceeding the cap.

But throwing out the cap now (which seems to have pretty substantial support) and then trying to assess each before we put any limit in place would just derail this aspect of the proposal and leave us with the status quo. And the status quo lacks the guardrails that the early restructuring proposal passed this week recognised was needed.

Ultimately having forward-looking limited budgets is pretty standard practice in most organisations for good reason, and is already used elsewhere in the DAO. There’s still room to expand that budget where needed. And it also allows us to compare needs against one another, and decide which are the best ones to pursue.


Thanks for putting this together @KeenanL. Some quick comments/questions


  • Completely agree with @0xSpicySoup that there should be a forward looking budget for events. What exactly does the $150k refer to? The original Restructuring post set aside “$3k for 35 active contributors, $10k for sponsorship and $35k for offsite/retreats.” Does this $150k budget include Bogota and all expenses related to the Infinite Hackathon? Or should we look at this as expenses starting after Colombia?


  • $150k is both a high number and a low number. If you look at the 6 month forward budget that was compiled with DXgov and Swapr squad leads, it only proposed $50k in audit budget (so $100k annualized). So given the current position, $150k audit may be too high.
  • BUT! I hope DXdao exceeds this budget. While it is prudent to not spend on unnecessary audits, I would support a very large audit budget for Governance 2.0, in particular the new voting machine, as well as an upgraded back-end to Swapr. Those have not been started but I hope within a year they are ready to be audited and would expect DXdao governance to fund comprehensive audits of these foundational pieces to DXdao.
  • So, all in all, maybe that means the $150k budget for audits is the right number?


  • What exactly is a “contractor”? Technically, all DXdao contributors are independent contractors. Here though, I think we’re talking about “work that is not compensated through DXdao compensation guidelines”. So, obviously Space Inch is the big expenditure, but I guess this would apply to Entrecasa and lawyers? But not auditors because they would have a separate budget approved?
  • I am wary of this as a solution akin to “lower taxes” in traditional politics. That all sounds good in theory but how does it work in practice? To me the questions are, 1. What are DXdao priorities and/or tasks that need to be completed 2. What is the most efficient way to deploy resources to achieve this?
  • So if DXdao “immediately halted contractors”, what tasks and priorities would suffer with the reduction?
  • Swapr has made great strides over the last six months, but there are big questions about its current positioning and long-term plans. Answers to those questions - and an analysis of our current development capability - should dictate what resources need to be spent on Space Inch or other contractors.

And then, in terms of the proposal to be submitted, are the poll results going to be included in the signal proposal submitted on Monday or will they just guide the text that will be used for submission?


Both of these lines strike me as aimed at defending the status quo. In reality, despite spending “with approval from the DAO” and DXdao having some degree of “tasks and priorities,” DXdao has not worked out or executed a robust planning process or much of a planning process at all. Discussing impact of proposed ideas makes sense here, but the above is by no means more hasty or haphazard than how the spending patterns were established in the first place.

Yes, I agree we don’t want to continue as we have been doing in the past.

I am proposing the opposite of status quo.

My comment about workers not compensated through DXdao compensation guidelines is a “going forward” statement.

DXdao should re-evaluate the products it is focused on and justify investment and spend into each product.

As part of this evaluation and justification, the DAO needs to consider all factors, things like:

  • Expected success, usage and revenue from this product
    • Expected potential returns
  • Expected cost to get to a finished, usable product
    • Developer resources
    • True audit cost (and bug bounties)
    • Go-to market cost (marketing, promotion, awareness, etc.)
    • and other costs
  • Expected cost to maintain and advance the product
  • Expected time to get to a finished, usable product
  • Risk of delays
  • Whether the product is a differentiator in the space
  • How DXdao will measure all these variables
  • Etc.

If after this detailed evaluation, the DAO decides it is a good idea to move forward, then DXdao needs to use its capital and resources to achieve the goal. This includes allocating money and technical and non-technical resources to this goal.

If after all this a proposal was was approved to build this product, and resources are needed and we can’t find these resources directly, then contractors paid only in USD-stables may be the best, most efficient option.


I read it as this, and I think that’s how it’s intended and makes the most sense. I don’t think anyone’s suggesting we renege on commitments 2 weeks out. Will let @KeenanL confirm by way of editing/not editing the original post.

I think this is the key takeaway - it seems like the right ballpark for a sensible target, and we’ll have a benchmark to easily identify issues well in advance: If we’re 6 months through the year and have used $0, why? If we’re 6 months through the year and have used $140k, why? Of course, identifying at the same at 3 months is better, and we should be constantly trying to analyse these things. I think having a sensible benchmark is valuable and, as above, all spend should be treated with scrutiny, but this merely gives the DAO some ageed upon guidance such that we’re not waiting years to identify and act upon issues as in the past. I think that’s where an undefined budget ends up.

Yes, that can be inferred by the reference to annual spend - the fact that it’s $432k rules out the possibility of all DXdao contributors being the possible target.

Auditors are usually much more piecewise than other contractors, to be fair, in that you pay per audit rather than some kind of retainer. Admittedly, I don’t know the details of current contracts for DXdao.

I don’t see this to be the case - the big advantage of using contractors is their flexibility. To be frank, I don’t think any of our current products, barring Gov 2.0 which to my knowledge Space Inch are not working on, are in any danger of being on the edge of significant near-term traction that contractors are going to be able to get product-to-market in time to make a difference. Therefore, I think it’s sensible for us to cut contractors immediately while this prioritization and refocusing process is undertaken by the DAO. There is clearly some bloat to the organization, and we should be cutting back in order to then rebuild back out where sensible.

Agree - but during the time that we are answering those questions, and especially given that those answers are likely to look very different to the status quo in some form, I think we should be utilizing the huge advantage of contractors in that they are flexible and easy to (dis)engage in the meantime. Their marginal benefit is going to be significantly lower during this period of uncertainty.

Agreed - I don’t see this proposal’s content as at-odds with this, though. It’s a step towards it - cutting away what’s not strictly necessary, and then rebuilding from a position of objectivity, where the additional spend has to be justified, not the cut. That is the key here.

And to the more detailed bullet points, I don’t think we’re in a position with any of our products, barring Gov 2.0, where a risk of delays is remotely threatening its near-term traction, nor is there a likelihood of revenue that is high enough to warrant any continuation without this rigorous process of spend-justification. i.e. I don’t see any reason why squads other than Gov 2.0 should continue in any capacity beyond maintenance mode, until we have had the discussions that you are referring to, and that spend justification process is what contributors’ time should be spent on instead. Maybe that’s something controversial enough for Phase 2, though…

In any case, spend on more flexible contractors seems extremely sub-optimal during a time where both the future direction of each product is less than certain, and where product squads are likely to spend a large proportion of their short-term time putting together comprehensive plans-of-action for the DAO to assess justification for future spend.

Agreed, but with emphasis on if after :slight_smile:

Agreed completely. I think, as above, the key is that we’re going to be much more likely to make good financial decisions by cutting back as much as is feasible, getting consensus on the vision for the future, and then adding what’s needed from there.

TLDR; Our organization’s return on capital expenditure is naturally going to be much, much higher if we have to gain consensus on each marginal $1 spent bringing in more than $1, rather than gaining consensus on each marginal $1 cut bringing in less than $1. The threshold becomes stricter.


Hey all!

We had another chat about Phase 1 on the community call today. I expect that recording to be up soon for anyone wanting to listen in.

To recap, I am personally incredibly happy with the current stage of the restructuring, from both the perspective of the passed signal proposal and the quality and professionalism of the discussions.

With nearly 24h left on the polls, and nearly 4 days left before a signal proposal submission deadline, I wanted to direct any final discussion of this Phase to the two most contentious topics.

Should DXdao place a temporary restriction on new contributor proposals below level 6 until Phase 2 has passed?

This is the second most contentious vote, with 72% YES and 28% NO at the time of writing. It had more NO votes on the first day, before the start of discussions. Additional clarity through these discussions revealed the intention was NOT to disallow the onboarding of new contributors outright, but rather to require additional justification for the position through a passed on-chain proposal PRIOR to starting a trial period. This would be imposed temporarily, until DXdao has successfully executed Phase 3. (If there is an obvious, identifiable and agreeable need, why would we prevent a contributor from engaging?)

It was also brought to my attention that it likely doesn’t make sense to impose such a restriction solely below level 6, and that this could be a blanket ‘restriction’ for all levels while we are working through the restructuring.

It would be good to hear specifics from those that voted NO to the temporary restriction. Is there any reason we shouldn’t impose a mandatory on-chain proposal before a trial period engagement while we are focusing on restructuring?

Should DXdao immediately disengage from contractors?

This is currently the most contentious vote, with 60% YES and 40% NO, and has been a focal point of discussion on the calls and above in the forum.

The primary NO argument appears to be that our exact priorities are unclear and that the contractors affected by this proposal, Space Inch, are integrated tightly with Swapr. Would this disengagement cause delays or damage to current Swapr priorities?

Quote highlighted in no way to suggest the position of any individual, but rather to put the spotlight on where all perspectives can be reflected upon

The primary YES argument appears to be that DXdao’s lack of clarity with priorities is all the more reason to take a step back and slim where possible, and that there doesn’t appear to be an immediate product market fit with Swapr that would justify use of external contractors.

Quote highlighted in no way to suggest the position of any individual, but rather to put the spotlight on where all perspectives can be reflected upon

I think the most valuable and final thing to clarify for Phase 1 is whether this cut should go through in its current form. I think hearing additional perspectives from the NO voters, particularly in response to @hughesconnor’s reply, would be incredibly valuable to finalizing a prospective upcoming proposal.

Thanks all!


In my opinion it is pretty obvious that the Space Inch contractors should be let go. Precisely because there is so much uncertainty about DXdao’s product direction, and because there is a lack of traction. To put things in perspective, consider that SWPR’s circulating market cap is less than the annual budget for Space Inch. It indeed would be interesting to hear the perspective of those who think it makes sense to continue with this spend, if there is anyone who thinks this. If there’s ambiguity about the meaning of “contractors” here I think specifying Space Inch for the proposal would cover the bulk of the budget impact.

It would also be good to hear from the leaders of the Swapr Squad. I haven’t watched the most recent governance call, but if there’s relevant points to this discussion would be great if they could be reflected in this thread.


A signal proposal is coming shortly. In the meantime, read through this contextual post prepared by the Space Inch team, who would be affected by the contractor disengagement topic.

The signal proposal for “Restructuring and Refocus | Phase 1: Low Hanging Fruit” has been submitted and pre-boosted to the Gnosis Chain base.

As there were no signal proposals submitted before the suggested deadline, allow me to run through justification for the choices made in the posted signal proposal. All block quoted text can be found as conditions in the submitted signal proposal.

1). DXdao will impose an event budget targetting $150k annually.

  • This would not prevent spending above $150k, but rather set a limit in which further expenses require attention and justification.

2). DXdao will impose an auditing budget targetting $150k annually.

  • Similarly to the above, this wouldn’t prevent auditing expenses above $150k, but rather serve as a limit in which further costs require attention and justification.

After some discussions and clarity, these budget targets garnered significant support, with 89% and 94% “Yes” votes. The main critiques appear to have been cleared up, namely:

  • Budget implications are following current obligations, namely events surrounding Bogota.
  • This signal does not PREVENT spend above the targets, but rather sets a running goal for DXdao to aim towards, and otherwise needs to provide strong justification.
  • Soft consensus is to tighten event spending through a combination of contributor relevancy and sponsorship limitations, rather than a full reduction to one of these categories.

Good quote for this topic from @0xSpicySoup:

3). DXdao will commit to reducing the length and/or frequency of its public and internal weekly calls where appropriate .

  • This also includes delegation of attention. Call leads should indicate which parties are expected to attend each call.
  • EG: Devs only on the developer calls.

This topic had 89% “Yes” votes in the forum. Broadly there was support with some questions surrounding how the process would be implemented and other efficiency related concerns.

Good quotes for this topic from @sky:

4). DXdao will temporarily require all new contributors to pass a proposal on-chain to start their engagement.

  • This would be imposed until the passage of Phase 3, unless otherwise mentioned in an upcoming signal proposal.
  • This restriction would not disallow new contributors outright, but instead require an on-chain vote BEFORE approving a trial period or other engagement.

This was the second most contentious forum vote, with 68% “Yes” in the final tally. Initial concerns with this action appeared to surround the wording/framing. The action is now considered temporary and reiterates that it is not disallowing ANY contributor engagement but rather requiring an on-chain proposal to start said commitment.

On a more personal level, I think that this is how our proposal process should work – specifically for contributors looking to join DXdao on a monthly cadence (Gnosis Chain proposals are shorter than the time from job acceptance to start date in trad anyhow!). This allows governance to evaluate the need based on current workload VS budget, and should result in a healthier and more transparent onboarding process.

5). DXdao will launch the DXD guild with 4% REP and commit to further governance discussions to scale this REP percentage higher following deployment.

  • Action 1). Launch the guild and grant it 4% REP.
  • Action 2). Commit to further discussions surrounding increasing this REP allocation before Governance 2.0 implementation.

A solid 89% “Yes” here, but this topic saw some initial concern with its framing. Namely, the original title implicated a narrow range of REP allocation post-guild deployment. Some argued for more, others for less. After this feedback, the text was adjusted to implicate that DXdao will commit to discussions on scaling the percentage AFTER deployment, and seemed to reach a consensus.

6). DXdao will immediately disengage from contractors.

  • This would presently encompass Space Inch, a group of blockchain devs operating for DXdao since July of 2021.
  • This action does NOT involve severing connections with any entity. Instead, it grants DXdao the opportunity to take a step back and evaluate its goals, product financial viability and budgetary situation before committing to further contractor relationships or periods.

With 57% “Yes” and 43% “No”, you might think that I would not include this topic in the “Low Hanging Fruit” signal proposal. However, I believe there was an initial lack of clarity surrounding the reasoning behind the disengagement and that it appeared to have an element of permanence, which was incorrect. The finality of the discussions resonated as a soft consensus towards committing to this disengagement, for reasons I will outline below.

The signal proposal will involve disengaging from contractors, but now communicates two very important points:

  1. This action does NOT involve severing connections with any entity. – If DXdao in under a month (Phase 2), can establish its priorities and properly justify them, I imagine bringing Space Inch directly into these updated processes would be an ideal outcome.
  2. DXdao is taking a step back and evaluating. – There are obvious challenges present between budget, goals, revenue, etc. This cut isn’t in any way personal or based on performance, but it instead allows DXdao to take a step back financially and adjust its focus as an entire organization. When it’s ready to capitalize, it should be prepared to fire all engines.

Including the contractor disengagement in the submission of Phase 1 was also considering the lack of substantive written or verbal pushback against the topic, particularly after verbal governance call discussions and in response to @hughesconnor above. Both verbally and in the above thread, I had interpreted a consensus of utilizing the flexibility of contractors during a period of product uncertainty to scale back active efforts and costs before reapplying pressure when certainty emerges.

When making a decision on this proposal, consider both the thread prepared by the Space Inch team surrounding their commitment (and why they believe it would be unwise to disengage at this time). Also consider these quotes from the above discussions.

I will ping all relevant channels once the proposal is boosted and ready to be voted on. I’d also like to thank everybody again for a professional and productive process thus far.



The signal proposal for “Restructuring and Refocus | Phase 1: Low Hanging Fruit” has been boosted and can now be voted on without a REP penalty.

0xKLOM.eth has voted FOR this proposal for the reasons outlined above; high voter participation would be great to see on such a proposal!

The signal proposal for “Restructuring and Refocus | Phase 1: Low Hanging Fruit” has PASSED with 16.40% in favor and 0.00% opposed.


Some action has already begun, while other organization related tasks, such as call length changes, will be handled over the next while – throughout Devcon week and beyond.

Next steps include the discussion and deliberation period of Phase 2, which has seen some changes in the passed signal proposal for the restructuring. These discussions will be held throughout the Devcon week, and most importantly, on the dedicated DXdao off-site. I expect a forum post to support this discussion to be posted within the coming week, possibly two, to adhere to the deadline outlined in the original signal proposal.

Thanks everyone! Also, apologies for the late ping here. Travel has been, as always, complicated.

1 Like