Proposal: Allocate 60,000 OSMO from the community pool to a community multisig address to be spent on bootstrapping and managing the Osmosis community support DAO
The DAO will be controlled by a 3-of-5 community multisig. The admins of this multisig will be:
- Michael Barbera (TG @MikeBarb)
- Dennis Kim (TG @SJ_DK)
- Edwin Hartman (TG @DynamicManic)
- Justin M (TG @jm124578)
- Kevin Dizzle (TG @kevindizzle)
Every three months, the DAO will produce a transparency report detailing the use of funds in the previous quarter. The report is expected to state the amount of funds spent in the quarter, and for what purpose they were used. See sample-transparency-report.png included in this gist as an example of what is expected.
Initially, the DAO will assemble a team to manage channels specifically for Osmosis support issues. This team will be responsible for creating and maintaining a Telegram channel specifically for any technical problems or questions that Osmosis users might be having. The DAO will also provide support to Twitter users experiencing difficulty with Osmosis. Furthermore, the DAO will use funds for training new support staff members.
Over time, the DAO will spearhead more community-run initiatives and provide an organized process through which community pool funds can be allocated and dispersed. The DAO will eventually become informal community leadership regarding protocol governance. DAO members can help other community leaders formulate ideas for how to improve Osmosis and collaboratively draft and submit these proposals. In particular, the DAO will assume a leadership role in facilitating regular discussions about updating pool rewards and submitting proposals to this end.
This team will help increase decentralization in Osmosis by putting the community in charge of key operations and distributing OSMO back to community members who help onboard more users through technical support and general education. The DAO will set a precedent not just for Osmosis but the overall DeFi industry. This proposal is the first of its kind among DeFi protocols.
In coming years, the DAO will require additional funds to continue operating. The Osmosis community can allocate new funds to the DAO through future governance proposals.
The proposal failed by 21.8%. 36.8% yes. 47.8% no + 10.8 no with veto. So, we got the message. Despite being rough around the edges and too vague for some, 9,133,759.716287 still backed it.
Your point is 100% true and 100% false. It's true in that "This is only the "downpaymennt" in their mind". No one thinks this would solve community support permanently. Most funding, especially for us to multi-sign on hiring admins, goes to labor. It's funding a sprint to start bootstrapping solutions with a massively simplified scope: 60k OSMO runway. Fix every damn major problem you can anticipate emanating from new customer support admin outward.
That's it.
Go to the community – as you have been – to find the best ideas, sign off on them. We'll all see the results in real time. In the chats of various platforms. On d'apps and portals. Every tx is on-chain. Summarize in report and demonstrate results in a way that the community says, let's keep going. Or not.
Saying, "the actual budget request/demand will come later" is false. This is the budget. When it runs out, the community decides whether they want to keep funding admins, scaling solutions, or not.
I did not draft the proposal. I did not provide input on the proposal. I was asked if I'd lend my expertise and gumption to helping us gather community opinions and gauge problems to fund solutions in anticipation of the onslaught of new users coming in with e-money, terra assets, etc. in the coming weeks.
I said yes because I've tried to say yes to Osmosis and what the team is doing, based on the results they've demonstrated. They reached out to these five community members based on the results they've demonstrated.
Guess what? I think they did the right thing by putting this out -- even if it was in an imperfect state. It's jumpstarted the conversation and stirred up a ton of objections and common sense concerns. I'm confident we can get to a minimum viable product vis-a-vis a proposal for this mission on the next round.
Here's where I'd like to defend. John P. saying "The DAO will eventually become informal community leadership regarding protocol governance." I think this is his and the Osmosis' team's vision and hope for a DAO, not necessarily even these five multi-sig members. Although I think he did have this much confidence in these members and was trying to express that.
I believe leadership from a community's perspective and will is earned through demonstrable results and confidence over time. There may have been a disconnect, especially because we're growing so fast. Community is so siloed into different chambers across channels that the names in this multi-sig might as well be characters from Sesame Street for all you know. I get that.
But I think it's a reasonable vision, over time, to believe that the community will want to approve of some of its members to oversee a DAO treasury that continues to do the work of signing off on funding excellent support admins and projects. I'd presume the framework for how to appoint, elect, expand, re-shape, or tweak members and their roles in this model will evolve. But getting everyone to agree on spending the first uOSMO without a nudge like this could take months? Years?
And, John and the Osmosis team didn't just pick this group of people randomly or lightly. They vetted. Have you trusted their decisions and the performance of who they've chosen to work with so far? Is the product to your liking? Do you think they would make a massive mistake in assigning intermediary roles to all 5 of the multisig members? Hell, only 3 need to agree. I don't. But we all have different risk aversion.
I think this point from Dev on the Osmosis team nails my thinking on the paradigm we should use for bootstrapping ways to activate the Community Pool for the good of the community for this and other "start-up" DAO endeavors:
"I primarily want to make sure were not letting great transparency (with high logistical overhead, and privacy concerns0 get in the way of something with good enough transparency and lots more time to dedicate toward the actual desired task. Also I think transparency needs scale up as the DAO controls greater percentages of the pools funds. For context, I'm generally viewing 60k osmo as .2% of the pools funds, since the airdrop clawback will 5x the pool supply e.g. I'd rather have 10% less transparency, and 50% more DAO member time / mental cycles freed up to figure out how and where to effectively spend those funds." https://discord.com/channels/798583171548840026/889774379716710400/890812735653302322
Hopefully a Community Support DAO will get your approval in the future.