For example, the different levels of ideation that should be defined for good governance, and in the time order that makes sense. Often the knowledge and/or expertise to do execute on these different parts well are held by different people, or need buy in from stakeholders at different levels of stakeholder detailed knowledge.
Thanks for sharing this - intriguing. After reviewing the proposal and some of the feedback, I suspect they will not pursue what appears to be the optimal path for them at this point in their evolution. The formulation of the “first principles” described here provides a useful lens into why I draw this conclusion.
While the vision->strategy->tactics->implementation structure is commonly seen in tradorgs, in practice it is difficult to work with. This is why in the playbook I instead gravitated to Tom Graves’ formulation of vision / role / mission / goal, as it is a more practical way to approach these kinds of efforts. Graves particularly advocates for a broader definition of vision than what is typically used by most tradorgs that it describes a desired world that is bigger than the organization itself and can never be achieved. That way, the vision provides guidance not only on the org’s activities, but also informs partnerships, M&A, and other interactions beyond its boundaries.
Maker’s attempt to define a common vision appears likely to yield 1 of 3 outcomes:
- The vision is defined broadly and agreed to by nearly all members, yet does not provide enough guidance to address the conflicts they are experiencing.
- The vision is defined narrowly enough to obtain a majority of votes, yet alienates a significant part of the membership and leads to a dispersed exodus.
- There is no agreement on a vision and they continue to bifurcate based on the whims of the token holders.
In this case, my prescription for Maker would be as follows:
- Define a vision in the Graves sense in a way to get a 90%+ consensus
- Identify the different roles the community wish to play in achieving that vision
- Split up Maker into enough DAOs for each role to have its own dedicated community
- Allocate resources to each DAO from Maker based on the whims of the token holders
- Implement a mission-based pod structure for each DAO in support of their role
While this approach will likely never be accepted because the created DAOs would be smaller than Maker, in the long run this would best position them to have communities that are best positioned to succeed in bringing the broader vision to life.
I love your wisdom from lived experience. I agree with you that it is very unlikely Maker will make anything close to optimal steps to rectify its current circumstances, and is very likely to continue down the path they are currently on, even with attempts like Hasu’s to try and rectify it. Without being a heartcentric organization that creates empathy for all sides, and a desire for a united vision coming to agreement with the amount of asset value involved will be very hard for Maker’s different players.
Thanks for your reply!