hello world
The images are getting exported in the path /media/uploada
Asking for >$100k to find inefficiencies and unneccessary expenditures seems like the setup to a joke, whose punchline I hope is obvious to anyone reading.
There’s no justification for this budget provided - how do you expect it to be spent?
Given this brief reply I would encourage you to read the proposal and give constructive feedback about how the DAO can run a retrospective on it’s spending and output. As the founder of ENS I would have thought this idea would have sparked joy, how do we improve the DAOs output. As i’ve stated multiple times as this proposal has been going through the wringer, this isn’t something I’m doing for fun - Clearly (for some reason?) this is a controversial post despite it being for the betterment of ENS and the entire industry. I hope you can see that despite your distain for my contributions.
In terms of the $100k number, given a spend of >$10m by the DAO, $100k would represent less than 1% of this - Now even if we take the Labs budget out; (hopefully this type of proposal can also encourage similar retrospectives for Labs but that can be a later goal) A $100k budget would be ~2% of the DAOs yearly spending, something that isn’t ‘unnecessary expenditure’ at all when comparing to traditional organisations at the same scale and their impact evaluation.
This budget was an output of conversations over the past weeks; The above proposal outlines the budget would be controlled by MetaGov as a part of their role as an independent actor in this process. I assume you’re not overly familiar with MetaGov, but they are deeply involved in web3 research and global academia - Something that isn’t cheap. The justification for this budget I agree can continue to be built out, but a large majority would be delivered to MetaGov team members for their work crunching the data and outputs acquired by the wider effort - I know Eugene is planning to post today once he gets perms sorted.
Excited to see more constructive feedback around this proposal. To be crystal clear, ENS DAO has a treasury of over $100m in cash equivalents and $500m in ENS tokens, spending $100k and 4 months on a retrospective on the last two years of spending is absolutely justified. Hopefully it can be noted that all actions _ take are conscious of the global DAO & token market and how we can drive positive sum outcomes.
A Retro of some kind is fine, but this temp check introduces more issues & concerns than solutions it may recommend.
The Temp Check asks delegates to make a single combined decision across three separate areas: 1) high-level design, 2) budget, and 3) team.
My position on each:
- A Retro does not require 9 stewards + secretary. At most, 1 steward per WG is sufficient. Information should already flow cross-team, and some WGs claim to have completed their own retros. While continuity can be valuable, several stewards seem focused on maintaining their roles or emphasising their own importance. If compensation for outgoing stewards is needed, it can be a simple line item - it doesn’t justify this structure.
- The proposed budget is high for a 4-month period and lacks detail such as headcount & individual rates.
- I cannot support the listed team. Several operate with their own agenda, and their conflicts of interest are no different from those they portray of others. They require dilution or replacement.
For me, the proposal fails on those fronts. I will vote against.
In any case, if ‘a Retro’ were to pass, I would strongly support dissolving the WGs - today & regardless.
This is necessary to move forward without the structures that are already acknowledged as broken and ineffective. It would also prevent further situation of manipulation & positioning from incumbents & pseudo-active contributors maintaining presence & indulging themselves purely for future roles. I am genuinely tired of busywork in our DAO. Furthermore, dissolving does not prevent future creation.
Thus, on balancing intents of retro and actual progress: I support this proposal [Temp Check] Replace the Working Groups with the ENS Admin Panel. An amended Retro can provide an opportunity for creation - which may include reinstallation of some forms - but retaining the current WG model for its sake makes little sense. If kept, it would be predictable that more noise is added than taken away and improved - so let’s cut to the chase and remove that which for too long extracts from mission focus.
I’ve plenty of thoughts on designs around DAO allocation, grants and programs, but none of that matters while we tolerate current wastage, distractions and enable the needless political playground that slows us down.
A Retro of some kind is fine
Doesn’t read like you’re encouraging a retro at all from the rest of the post, strange way to open.
A Retro does not require 9 stewards + secretary.
That’s not whats being proposed at all. Whats being proposed above is MetaGov (the org not the WG) taking a point role on the retro with myself, @Arnold and @clowes.eth contributing alongside MetaGov on the retro. However very open to changes in this group structure.
The proposed budget is high for a 4-month period and lacks detail such as headcount & individual rates.
Good to see you and Nick are on the same page - More detail can certainly be added around this budget.
I cannot support the listed team. Several operate with their own agenda, and their conflicts of interest are no different from those they portray of others. They require dilution or replacement.
This is exactly why MetaGov were introduced as a neutral third party - Very open to any other contributors that you think would be most well equiped to drive this retro. Everyone has their own bias - I think we can all agree we want this retro to be as credibly neutral as possible.