@Lana @nicholaspai and @david I think there’s a few others throwing out ideas that funding should be purely KPI options based if im not mistaken?
There are many DAOs that are providing a mixture of their native tokens plus stables. If you were to go a pure KPI options route you would effectively be cutting many of our abilities to pay bills with the amount of work, effort, time, sweat equity, helping with deliverables, and contributions that most of you arent aware of that go into maintaining the DAO and keep the machine running.
If this were to be the play going forward many of us would be forced to cut our time and energy here for search of DAOs that at least provide a mixture of (stables/tokens) or a very worst case scenario solely tokens but at least as an individual I can decide what to do with them at that point.
You cant expect people to continue pouring so much of their time and energy if they also need to meet their monthly needs! So I just want to make sure that you understand that is why we provide stables at this point or at the very least tokens to our members who do great work. I respect if that is the decision UMA team thinks the DAO should go but before that decision starts to have some sort of plan put together wanted to at least make you guys aware.
For some of us this is survival so please consider that when you propose how we should be funding our contributors! Thank you! As a small reference I use my stables to help with bills and the UMA tokens from the KPI options to add to my voting wallet, I have been voting for over a year now. Ive also been a contributor to the SuperUMAns for about 1 year now and consider a handful of the UMA team friends of mine.
This has nothing to do with the stables but I am personally disappointed with many of the teams responses. This is also my personal opinion and I do not speak for the SuperUMAn DAO!
3 Likes
Great points @fruitycup I appreciate the transparency, I think funding should be paid as a mixture of native tokens, stables, and KPI options, and the exact combination of which should be specific to each funding request!
2 Likes
Love this . Looking forward to seeing this come together
1 Like
Thank you, EA for putting up this proposal. I feel proud to be a part of the DAO that has grown in such a short span of time. This road hasn’t been easy and has for the most part kept us on our toes. Towards this, I thank RL and SUs.
The proposal has brought out different facets and some incredibly valuable feedback. There has been a healthy exchange of thoughts with most agreements and some disagreements. The analysis is thought-provoking and definitely needs work from our end. There are, however, some facts that might need some mention.
To begin with, DAO building was a major accomplishment during this last epoch. It was not a modest result. SU DAO is aimed at carrying the mantle that will provide value to the wider UMA DAO and RLs. The metrics should have focused on the DAO building than the no of integrations. We would have had a lot of deliverables. We ended up getting incentivized way lesser and we can only blame ourselves for failing to recognize that. DAO building was as important as the no of integrations.
SU DAO actively helps to steer the UMA community on discord and other social media platforms. The focus is to introduce UMA and OO to the wider crypto community. This necessarily cannot be translated into numbers. The exchange of ideas is an ongoing process. This is directed at bringing in more integrations and creating value for UMA and the token holders.
The deliverables can definitely be more ambitious in some cases and in others can be more narrowly defined. However, quantifying might not work for each specific case.
The suggestion of launching KPI options for some of the defined goals is a good one. We have been using the no of integrations as the only metric and maybe adding more goals to that will be a good start. We will have more deliverables to show than just the no of integrations. Teaching skills around LSP contract deployment and an educational course focused on that can be a good start.
I resonate with the suggestion made by @ChandlerDeKock. A long-term funding proposal will help us structure our treasury and expenses in a better way than short-term funding requests.
4 Likes
Fine input here @Everythingblockchain
There is one section I’d like to share some thoughts about.
The metrics should have focused on the DAO building than the no of integrations. We would have had a lot of deliverables. We ended up getting incentivized way lesser and we can only blame ourselves for failing to recognize that. DAO building was as important as the no of integrations.
I agree with this from the viewpoint that vision is always 20/20 when looking backwards. I think we did a good job rewarding SU DAO members for their DAO building efforts with a mix of KPI Options and stables.
As the challenge of designing, implementing, deploying, and expiring our own KPI options landed in our lap this past epoch, keeping it simple was the right choice.
Where I feel we could have done better, is on the proportions of the stable/KPI mix. I think we would have still built the DAO and focused more on integrations of we had gone heavier on the KPI allocation.
Moving forward with that 20/20 retrospective vision, your ideas (as well as others in this thread) of adding DAO incentives to our KPI option design is brilliant. Love the LSP learning goals you mention.
1 Like