X1 Fund Distribution Temperature Check

Please provide feedback and improvement suggestions on this intended proposal by EOD Friday 11 March 2022.


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.


  • Distribute 12 ETH from the orcanauts.pod.xyz pod as follows:
    • Send 2 ETH to art-naut.pod.xyz (in addition to the 4 ETH that has already been allocated for the Mutual Value Proposal)
    • Send 4 ETH to dev-naut.pod.xyz
    • Send 6 ETH to gov-naut.pod.xyz


Our initial plans for X1 included work for 4 pods: art-naut, dev-naut, gov-naut, and org-naut. My initial though, then, that each pod would receive 4 ETH. With the org-naut pod being put on hiatus, it makes sense to redirect the 4 ETH allocated there to other efforts. With both art-naut and gov-naut being the pods that had the most defined milestones included in the X1 charter, I believe the best approach to match these funds to where they would provide the most value would be to split these 4 ETH between art-naut and gov-naut. This results in the distribution outlined in the recommendation.

Other options considered:

  • Split the resources evenly among the 3 remaining pods: Given the lack of definition of milestones for dev-naut, it’s not clear to me how additional funds distributed there would provide value to the Orcanauts as a whole. Thus, I prefer distributing more funds to the pods with more defined milestones.
  • Direct the 4 ETH from org-naut to a nav-naut pod: Since nav-naut was not a pod in our initial scope of work, my preference would be that we create a separate proposal to fund nav-naut from Orca Core so we do not further stretch limited resources among the approved workplans.
1 Like

aia and I are writing a proposal for additional funding from Orca Core. Will post a draft soon.


Got me thinking a bit more about fund allocation. Could be tested now or maybe be withheld until things are in more of a steady running state.

A couple of potential structures for Orcanaut funds allocation:

  • Pod-based, project-neutral structure that allocates funds based on high-level functional needs. Project-specific allocation happens at the pod level. This is good for stimulating leadership and project activity in specific pods, but may result in pod-level fund surpluses/shortages.

  • Project-based bounty structure that is pod neutral. Project volunteers are paid upon completion (by some award mechanism). This allocates funds efficiently to projects that need labor but maybe isn’t great to stimulate activity in an inactive pod.


I think the extra 4 eth should stay in Orcanauts until there is a clear and well defined need from one of the original groups. If projects had more complete Scopes of Work and estimates of cost, than I would be happy to distribute them where clearly needed. Now, it feels like people just not wanting to lose budget as is typical in bureaucracies.

We will likely have a mix of both of these in the future as we start to create ongoing operations. This is where concepts like drips for ongoing activities would also play a role.

I can see your point, yet from that reasoning we should base the allocations not on the pod structure, but on the milestones that were defined in the grant proposal, which would be as follows:

  • 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

Let’s walk through each of these.

  • “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. This feels a bit bigger than the average for the items listed, so let’s say 2 ETH would have been allocated here.
  • “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” 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 plan to propose a separate funding mechanism for this work given its size and scope, I’m going to cheat and skip this one. If for some reason that doesn’t work out, then the 2 ETH that would have gone to the service offerings effort can be redirected here.
  • “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.

Here’s the summary of allocations based on the above:

  • Treasury management and allocation - up to 2 ETH
  • Create content - 4 ETH
  • Splash page - 0.5 ETH
  • Brand profile - 2 ETH
  • Metagovernance - 2 ETH
  • DAO pain points survey - 2 ETH
  • Total - 12.5 ETH (6.5 ETH to art-naut led projects, 6 ETH to gov-naut led projects)

While dev-naut members would be part of some of these efforts, I frankly feel uncomfortable with saying they get no allocation at all when we weren’t that explicit about the notion that “if you want to receive some of the grant, you have to specify specific milestones”.

The good news, though, is that since we would have a few ETH left over even with the above allocations, we can fund some dev-naut proposals for any experiments they’d like to run or specific things they’d like to create. That feels tolerable, although I’d like to get some other perspectives here, especially from folks in the dev-naut pod.

I feel comfortable enough with that to use this as the basis for an updated proposal. I’ll summarize that in a follow-on post to make it easier to read and respond to.


Updated Proposed Distribution - please provide feedback by EOD Monday 14 March

  • 6.5 ETH to art-naut 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 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”

Remaining funds would be held and prioritized for the following uses:

  • dev-naut experiments and buidls
  • Onboarding process (if separate funding mechanism doesn’t work out for some reason)

See post #6 above for reasoning behind these allocations.

1 Like

I love this! I am not sure i agree with all of the valuations, but that is noise really. At this point it is about creating precedents of thought for the right way to do things.

I do think dev-naut should have an opportunity to show up with why/how they could usefully use funds. Otherwise, i think what goes towards them should be out of the budget of those they are providing a service for.

Thank you!

I like this and am in favour of the allocations (good enough for now, safe enough to try). If we change our mind later, funds can be transferred back.

I would also add:

We can think of pods as a “marketplace”, with each one providing services to the others for their initiatives. For example, that can look like eg gov-naut “hiring” dev-naut to support one of the gov-naut X1 initiatives. In the early stages we’re small enough to come to reasonable “pricing” for that work, but later exposing services to external work may help keep value propositions vs pricing in check.

If we apply this right now, there are a couple of gov-naut X1 initiatives that may want dev-naut support, which would put the responsibility to gov-naut and the corresponding project leaders to scope out needs and costs for their projects. Eg. the DAO pain points project should talk to dev-naut about the scope of the support needed, and be prepared for a corresponding transfer.