OIP - X1 Fund Distribution - Proposal

Please provide any concerns or objections to this approach here by EOD Thursday 17 March. Intent is to distribute funds soon after that.

Situation:

X1 funding has been distributed to the Orcanauts pod, and Orcanauts are working on X1 workstream activities, but there is no consensus on how to distribute these resources to the people doing this work. This proposal outlines how to distribute the X1 funds to those doing the work.

Recommendation:

Distribute 14.5 ETH from orcanauts.pod.xyz as follows:

  • 6.5 ETH to art-naut.pod.xyz to administer the following X1 workstreams:
    • Create content for promotion of key Orcanauts ideas
    • Splash page for the Orcanauts
    • Brand profile with art assets to define the Orcanauts
  • 6 ETH to gov-naut.pod.xyz to administer the following X1 workstreams:
    • Treasury management and allocation plan
    • Set up a metagovernance structure for managing delegated governance tokens
    • Conduct a survey of DAO pain points
  • 2 ETH to dev-naut.pod.xyz to administer the following X1 workstream:
    * Task board with claimable development research topics

Justification:

We included the following tasks within the scope of X1:

  • Create & maintain a standardized service offerings menu
  • Treasury management and allocation plan
  • Create content for promotion of key Orcanauts ideas
  • Splash page for the Orcanauts
  • Brand profile with art assets to define the Orcanauts
  • Create and test an engaging onboarding process for new members
  • Set up a metagovernance structure for managing delegated governance tokens
  • Conduct a survey of DAO pain points

Analysis of each workstream:

  • Create & maintain a standardized service offerings menu - originally part of org-naut, so since that has been put on hiatus we would set the funds we would have put aside for this back into the treasury.
  • Treasury management and allocation plan - DarylEdwards has proposed a retroactive grant based on perceived value delivered for this work. This feels like it is at least an average size activity here, so let’s say 2 ETH is set aside for this, and if the Orcanauts decide not to grant the full amount, the rest would revert to the treasury.
  • Create content for promotion of key Orcanauts ideas - This seems to match up with the Mutual Value Proposition that PostArchitect has already been granted 4 ETH to deliver, so no additional amount seems to be needed here.
  • Splash page for the Orcanauts - This feels like a lightweight activity compared to the other workstreams. Let’s say 0.5 ETH for this and if we want something nicer we could use some of the unused resources to propose specific improvements.
  • Brand profile with art assets to define the Orcanauts - This seems to roughly correspond with the Orcanaut Identity Project. This also feels a bit bigger than average, so let’s assume 2 ETH for this.
  • Create and test an engaging onboarding process for new members - Since we are proposing a separate funding mechanism for this work given its size and scope, we will skip this one.
  • Set up a metagovernance structure for managing delegated governance tokens - The analysis Brunny and I have done of this work and the time that will be required to define the approach and configure this for sustained execution leads us to conclude that 2 ETH is a reasonable market rate for what has been defined here.
  • Conduct a survey of DAO pain points - We are looking at several hours of work to conduct interviews, gather data, analyze the findings, and create useful internal and external artifacts. 2 ETH seems reasonable for this work as well.

In addition, we want to get experiments for developers going to encourage their ongoing participation. Setting up a task board with potential research topics that can then be rewarded appropriately by the dev-nauts looks like a great way to approach this, so we will allocate 2 ETH towards this.

4 Likes

Looks good! Thanks for doing this

1 Like

I support this proposal as discussed. All ahead full!

One important correction - I forgot to remove the 4 ETH that has already been distributed for the Mutual Value Proposition, so this distribution is for the remaining 10.5 ETH that needs to be distributed. 6 ETH to gov-naut, 2.5 ETH to art-naut, and 2 ETH to dev-naut.

1 Like

This looks great ‒ I appreciate the clarity of this proposal.

I don’t have any objections, but want to surface a question that came up for me:

We’re still clarifying aims and domains of pods. Is it worth waiting to make final decisions on X1 Fund Distributions until after we have agreed upon aims and domains?

This is a genuine question ‒ not trying to imply that we should or should not wait. But I’d rather bring it up here and make an intentional decision than proceed without considering the ongoing aims and domains discussion.

A few things on my mind:

  • Based on last week’s session, I think it’s likely that aims and domains will not vary drastically from what is outlined here, but…
  • If we distribute funds before agreeing upon aims and domains and then decide to modify aims and domains ‒ how do we handle that?
  • If we decide to wait to make a final decision, we have the option of recording contributions and retroactively compensating contributors

Other things I’m noticing (again not judgements or suggestions, just acknowledging):

  • Lack of funding for org-naut is in-line with discussion last week around what org-naut owns (and perhaps adjourning org-naut for X1 with the opportunity to bring it back is the best way forward)
  • Nav-naut isn’t accounted for in this budget (request for funding for nav-naut can be found here)

Note on timeline: I feel confident in our ability to ratify aims and domains by Monday, March 28th (process should be much shorter than Governance Charter because we are iterating on an existing structure ‒ not starting from scratch).

I’d love to hear what everyone thinks ‒ should we proceed with distributions or wait one week to ensure we have clear aims and domains for pods?

I know you requested feedback / discussion prior to March 17th, so apologies for the late response!

2 Likes

Thanks for bringing these solid points up, @chase

My simple take is that since there’s a small cost to re-distributing funds (gas is cheap these days!), then there are not “irreversible consequences with significant downside in its current state” as per the governance charter.

The only irreversible piece I could see is if significant transfers were to be made to individuals outside of the pod multisigs this week, which to my knowledge is not planned.

2 Likes

Hey Chase,

I really appreciate your feedback, and what you are bringing to Orca. With respect to this comment:

We’re still clarifying aims and domains of pods. Is it worth waiting to make final decisions on X1 Fund Distributions until after we have agreed upon aims and domains?

We made an agreement as Orcanauts to continue our X1 developments in parallel with the Governance work you are offering, figuring they will eventually sync up with each other. A deliberate choice on our part so as not to be gated by the wonderful process you are offering.

As for these:

Other things I’m noticing (again not judgements or suggestions, just acknowledging):

  • Lack of funding for org-naut is in-line with discussion last week around what org-naut owns (and perhaps adjourning org-naut for X1 with the opportunity to bring it back is the best way forward)
  • Nav-naut isn’t accounted for in this budget (request for funding for nav-naut can be found here )

To my understanding org-naut can not continue without it’s lead as the other members are also leads or Chun, and stepping more fully into the full responsibilities of their own Pods. Some of that work continues, as it rather directly feeds into art-naut Pod developments, and therefore has been continued by Post. Org-naut is in fact de facto suspended for the time being.

And, with respect to nav-naut, it did not come into existstence until well after the X1 proposal by the other Pods, and I believe they were even granted funding before the existence of nav-naut as as an actual Pod. From that place, Dendrons and I, the Orcanaut members of the Pod, never considered asking for funds from the original X1 proposal, and have since quite intentionally made our own separate proposal. I think from the original Pods perspective this was seen as most appropriate, too. In addition, recognizing the amount of time Avi had put into doing valuable work for Orca, even if it had not borne fruit yet, we saw fit to ask for a stipend for Avi for the time commitment of his prior work which included several work products and actions taken on behalf of the Orcanaut community.

I’d love to hear what everyone thinks ‒ should we proceed with distributions or wait one week to ensure we have clear aims and domains for pods?

So, in response to your question, based on prior agreements amongst the Orcanauts, and understandings that had been clearly communicated amongst them, even if not memorialized, I think funding should be distributed this week, unless there is a clear and present reason not to. Doing so would be in alignment with prior Orcanaut agreements and expectations.

My concern, and I think all the Orcanauts active in Pods would likely agree, is that we do not want to slow down the progress being made to getting “real” work done that impacts people other than Orcanauts and Sonar Labs.

Just my two cents! And, I may have misunderstood some of what I recollect hearing and consenting to in earlier meetings amongst Orcanauts.

Thank you for the feedback, and I hope this has helped you to better understand the Pod active Orcanaut position. In addition, with a clear governance agreement in place, all of these kinds of decisions should start becoming a part of organizational memory that is easy for all of Orca to access and respond to.

4 Likes

This completely makes sense and I really appreciate the thoughtful response.

Also, just to clarify: this decision does not require the consent of Sonar Labs to move forward. I just wanted to offer a perspective around aims and domains work.

My response was not intended to be a nudge away from going through with the funds distribution, my apologies if it came off that way. The intent was to surface the aims and domains conversation, especially given that this proposal was written prior to our discussion around aims and domains.

3 Likes

This definitely makes sense. Love the use of good enough for now and safe to try!

2 Likes