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.
You're welcome! I'm happy to take some time to engage in conversation.
What I really want to do is sign off on paying and onboarding new admin staff and other funding initiatives that get ahead of the massive influx of users who will flood into the Zone with assets from Terra, ETH and BTC.
And we've all learned so much from the reactions to this proposal. I hope we can count on your support when an amended one takes shape.
My major concern is that you said my explanations had provided clarity. But then you failed to comprehend them. And then you ran with a patently false premise.
Did you really just miss when I said: "We've been told multisig member pay for work done won't come from this proposed budget"? Or how the multi-sig members were "going to be compensated with a one-time grant from the strategic reserve" which was a decision generously made by Sunny to tap the Osmosis Dev's own fund?
As to your last point, I don't take offense to your writing style at all. We're both laying down walls of text in this thread!
However, by the end you seem to be implying that I devised and wrote this proposal. I did not. I agreed to approve of txs from a DAO wallet to pay community-hired support admins and other such expenses described – perhaps with too little detail – in the 2nd paragraph of the proposal. I accepted that as a volunteer role.
Please refer to https://gist.github.com/johnpatten1/182dfb0b12d1b68212a24a7f0bcb94fc#gistcomment-3904102 for my particular level of involvement in crafting the proposal itself. At the bottom of that post is what think is an excellent rationale from one of the Osmosis developers for why they wanted and pushed for this original proposal, and felt an approach perhaps more like yours could be warranted for a larger spend than 0.2% of the pool.
And, even though your mistaken premise led you down a path of false assumptions, I do appreciate the thoughtfulness, care for detail, and consideration you've poured into this post. For what it is, your sample transparency report looks rock solid.