Aragon Black Flock draft proposal


With the deadline for the AGP community review coming up in two weeks, we have the pleasure to share with you an early draft of our proposal to apply for the renewal of our Flock membership:

We hope you enjoy it and await your feedback with excitement :eagle:


Hey. Thanks for putting this together :slight_smile:

A little conflicted…

On the one hand, you guys are creating awesome stuff! Pando and Fundraising are :fire: They will drive tons of value to the ecosystem and the Aragon platform. GitLab originally raised a 1.5mm seed round just to build out a GitHub competitor. You guys are asking for 1.5mm to do that, and much more…

On the other hand… you guys are doing much more. It seems like you want to be a media outlet, education/community resource, and infrastructure/dApp development team. That’s a lot… While all those things are good, I don’t see it all coming together.

I really really want to see better fundraising models and decentralized code repos live in the wild. I’m not so sure about the other things. Seems better to focus on 1 or 2 really important objectives rather than boiling the ocean. That’s my initial impression

1 Like

Sincere thanks for the support and considerations for our bandwidth.

These comments make me realize that we must do better at one thing: Making visible the link between our work and who we are.

Even if, as Aragon, we are becoming more and more of a family, there are some aspects only visible to those who take the journey together since the start. I will attempt to reveal some of those flavors with regards to who we are as the Aragon Black / Pando team (without making too much of an exposé).

While these three elements you have listed appear unrelated, there is a thread that ties all together. That thread is our team, our intellectual standing and our ambitions of both change and conservation. These roots benefit greatly (if not enable) our attempts at actualization. Our idea when wanting to incorporate those characteristics into our proposal was that we should bring some of this contemplation, inter-subjectivity and coherence to the crypto(!)space which we currently inhabit.

The question was how? How to transform the conversation from “ETH is money” towards nuanced thinking around notions of autonomy, the historical relevance of the efforts we are engaged towards decentralization and the extradition of the desire for monolithic power structures. Well, in the beginning, one should always consider one’s own resources when faced with such a challenge. So thats what we did: we found that over the years, we had collected an army* of independent thinkers, autonomist practitioners and networks of activists. These individuals dwell in the fringes of political actualization, thus have been on our radar, collectively or independently.

I can recount a formative experience tying together, or perhaps revealing the divide between our intellectual ambitions and our techno-utopian practice. I had the pleasure to converse with a bright carpenter from Bretagne last year. We talked about our professions(!) to each other, as you do. During my turn, I drifted on towards conveying the true potential of distributed governance, provoked by unimpressed gestures from the other side. I have quite some experience in the matters of personal communication of complex matters so I decided to push further. After I was done with my messianic oration, his face was unchanged. He calmly replied: “Yeah, but what about these people? How are you going to change their lives?” pointing to the village near us. I had almost nothing to say.

TL;DR: We must pop the intellectual bubble which is what we feed ourselves everyday. Get out and find those frictions which are infinitely abundant in the real world. Destroy the idea of a “smooth solution for all” and start to get our hands dirty. Dive in different perspectives, which can act as a wake up call at times and allow us to adjust our course.

The message distilled above, is the raison d’être of our efforts towards crafting such a medium. Sometimes it will look unnecessary or inefficient to do so. But losing critical thinking at a high-level is losing one’s grounding in my view. History is filled with such examples and if we are not an iteration, then why are we even moving a finger. And perhaps ocean-boiling is a practice we should never give up:)

I hope this finds you well, and that I didn’t drift too much into BS.

*sorry non-violent phraseologists


So I’m not sure if I entirely understand what you’re saying. It sounds like you want to include the why into the what of the things you’re building. This will attract like minded talent and create a healthy working environment. This will also help guide design decisions so that the things you make are aligned with the mission/vision of Aragon. Is that more or less what you’re saying?

1 Like

Hey team AB :wave:

There is a lot to like in this proposal in terms of initiatives. It’s great to see you guys focusing on bringing things that will bring real world usage to the ecosystem. This is super important

I02 - DAOJones platform

This is one case in point. This is going to be vital in getting usage. I think most recognise that fundraising would potentially shift drive a lot of the market share for DAOs to Aragon and open up new use cases. This kind of project would be very imporant

I love this idea but in my mind, I think you’re missing a trick here. instead of simply a place to manage a portfolio of DAO investments, it should be analogous to a ‘Kickstarter like’ platform. A place where you can go, pitch your idea and easily launch your organisation. This would potentially bring new kinds of users to the platform and Ethereum it’s self.

Right now, if you launch a DAO on Aragon, whether that be some kind of charitable organisation to fund some cause or a great business/protocol idea. How do you let people know? Just linking people to your DAO doesn’t say much. kickstart and these platforms have already demonstrated the power of crowdfunding, We should be learning the lessons from there and applying them to web3

on the deliverables, what exactly do you mean my Front end? do you mean there will be a site without the TCR elements?

I05 - Onboarding

For me, this is very exciting especially Aragon Academy. In the proposal, you talk about non-technical users. I would love to see this extended to helping get devs up and running building on the platform.


Some bureaucracy

Just a reminder that if you plan to apply for a Flock program grant, a full proposal must be submitted before October 3rd 16:00UTC. I’d suggest at least a day before so the AA has time to go through it and merge it to the Flock repo.

Note: we acknowledge the process is not ideal as is today. It will hopefull be transitioned to a smoother version soon thanks to this meta track AGP

My initial thoughts…

WRT Fundraising + DAOJones
I think the emphasis on Fundraising in the short term is incredibly important.

Being able to get capital into DAOs in a straightforward AND importantly accountable way is a really critical piece of the puzzle that is lacking in all of the existing Aragon templates available today. The launch of fundraising on mainnet will make it much easier to bootstrap DAOs, I’m personally planning on launching at least one shortly after it launches.

I also think that the creation of a discovery platform is essential and is imo core to the “fundraising” experience. I would even go so far as to say that even after fundraising is released on mainnet we should not communicate that as the Launch of fundraising until we launch the discovery platform. (Also quite happy to see that daojones as fun as it is, is only a placeholder name).

I’m not sure it makes sense for this to be a decentralized site from day one, I think that it would be sufficient and more likely to provide a good UX if the architecture was centralized but easy for people to host their own instance. I would tend to prefer this route, and perhaps there would be opportunity to collaborate and improve upon the Apiary codebase.

I also think that curation could be done using a basic tagging system operated by a DAO or leverage the Aragon Court for curation. I would generally prefer this initiative to leverage and integrate existing work in the aragon ecosystem than come up with something completely novel.

WRT Aragon Stack
I think that aragonJS “lite” is incredibly high leverage initiative. There are many cases where the best UX for interacting with a DAO is not within the context of the client, and I think this can help address that and make the Aragon Stack much more accessible to developers, and also enable teams and projects to have more control over the full user experience. I highly support this effort, but also want to better understand the timeline for when this effort would begin, how it would be managed, and how it can be coordinated with aragonJS and the rest of the stack?

WRT Build up Aragon’s Development Infrastructure
I’m highly aligned with this vision and have been a vocal supporter of pando for a long time, however, I think that it may not be the highest leverage thing to be working on right now.

I think that open source communities may be some of the earliest and broadest adopters of DAOs and it makes sense for them to eventually also do their code collaboration in a secure and decentralized environment, but I think we need to address scalability and ux challenges before it becomes broadly compelling to average users that don’t already care about blockchain.

If we want to focus on open source communities, I think it may make sense to try and plug DAOs into existing tools like GitHub as an initial step, providing communities with better tools to reward contributors and maintainers and also tie into things like fundraising to improve their ability to attract patrons.

Open Source Sustainability is a really important problem, and one of the hardest parts is actually governance… as soon as you put money on the table the collaborative / volunteerism that drives many open source communities can actually be disrupted or evaporate entirely. People that felt good about contributing voluntarily, may feel like their contributions are being marginalized because donations and even grants are not sufficient to pay market rates that they could earn in private industry.

Then once they have been onboarded to web3 and are using a DAO anyways, making the additional leap to a more secure and more decentralized code collaboration platform should be easier.

WRT Onboarding

This section feels a bit difficult to follow for me as there seem to be two disparate threads…

One is related to legal integration, which is interesting in and of itself and possible should be broken out into its own section. I think the DAOs as IP angle is interesting (though I’m not a lawyer and don’t really have a full grasp on how practical it would be, or what the properties or expectations of participants would be under such an arrangement) but it seems like it could provide an interesting legal structure for DAOs that are focused specifically on producing ip (software, books, and other forms of content).

I also think integration with OpenLaw could be broadly useful for those interested in pursuing legally linked organizations. Have you spoken to Ross and the OpenESQ guys about this initiative? Are you planning to work or contract with them here?

The other on-boarding efforts seem more focused on user education and supporting user with DAO ideation and creation, which I think is valuable (atleast right now). I think long term we need to get users to the point where they are self-serve, or we need these services to become independent sources of revenue for teams. Do you guys have thoughts on the future/direction of on-boarding efforts? Alternatively, do you have thoughts on how we can measure impact of these efforts as drivers of adoption?

WRT Black Blog

I threw a bit of shade at the Black Blog earlier this week because when I originally reviewed the proposal it seemed like it was 15% of Team Effort, its now listed at 4.5%.

I haven’t gotten confirmation on why the effort has changed, but my guess is that since part of the focus of the Black Blog is on creating user onboarding content and publishing it, some of that effort has be shifted there, which makes sense. So my initial concerns related to the scope of the effort relative to things like fundraising have largely been addressed by the AB team :+1:.

While I’m not completely sold on the blog, I do think it has merits and potentially can help Aragon connect with an audience that would never engage with other blog properties that exist in the ecosystem. One of the advantages of having different teams working on Aragon is that each can cultivate its own identity and build a relationship with external communities in a way that the project as a whole may not be able to.

WRT Costs

Based on the proposals 1.3M is allocated for payroll, for a team of 8 (current) and planned growth to 11. That works out to 118k to 162k depending on team growth per person, not accounting for different roles, experience, time commitment or location this seems relatively high. In addition, there is also 200k in planned expenses and 800k ANT has been included in this proposal, which would vest over 4 years, but which replaces the ANT grant request from the initial flock proposal.

I know the ANT grant was adjusted based on a conversation about standardization of ANT grant packages for flock teams. As far as the payroll is concerned I’m curious how these numbers compare to other flock teams, and to the overall market, what process was used to determine them, and how that process compares to other flock teams and general best practices? Would be great to have other Flock team members who are responsible for compensation also chime in here as well.

Also I noticed that there is also no designer on the team and no open positions for one. Is this going to be a problem? Is 80K sufficient budget for both legal and design contractors, especially given the initiatives proposed?

WRT Team Composition

Aragon Black Team currently lists 9 people, 4 of which are technical roles and 5 which are not. One of the Technical roles is a contractor (billy), who I’m assuming is not part of the 8 members of the team listed in the proposal. The additional hires will be technical roles as well, so when the team reaches 11 people it would be 7 technical to 4 non-technical roles.

I think that for the given proposal the team composition is okay (i’m a bit concerned that there is no designer on the team), I think if we were to just look at and possibly focus the proposal on the highest priority items (imo fundraising and aragonjs lite), it would be more optimal to have a higher ratio of technical members than there exists today. But I think if the team grows to 11 members the ratio will be better, and as it stands I think the less-technical initiatives at least have the potential to pay off.

In Conclusion

I’m supportive of this proposal, despite being generally very much of the opinion that monolithic year long proposals are bad for Aragon and bad for flock teams (because it makes approval binary and increases the risk and stress if a proposal were to not be approved). That being said, the flock program thus far has adopted this strategy and I think teams have been encouraged to follow the pattern set by other flock teams so far and I don’t think it makes sense to fault this proposal specifically for adopting those same norms.

I also want to highlight a bit of history that I think can help provide some context and tie this whole proposal together, before Aragon Black (and before Pando was Pando) there was Wespr.

The goal of wespr is to offer a distributed cooperation, distribution and valuation infrastructure to Commons Creative Contents (CCC)/i.e./ any kind of content produced through an open process such as - but not restricted to: Open Source Software, Books licensed under Creative Commons, Music licensed under Creative Commons, etc. wespr thus intends to be the cultural infrastructure of the distributed web. To do so we plan to provide: a. a distributed cooperation and versioning infrastructure; b. a distributed governance infrastructure; c. a distributed publishing infrastructure; d. a distributed valuation network.

The Wespr/Pando/Black team has been working towards this vision for a while, and I think must have had to struggle with the fact that underlying infrastructure wasn’t ready and needed to be built, so they started building. The core components that were originally proposed by the team are taking shape within Aragon and should be approaching launch in one form or another.

My hope is that as some of these components start to mature a bit more and become accessible to users outside the blockchain bubble the Aragon Black team can bring this original vision back into focus, and when they do and they start to engage with potential users with a very specific use case related to content and publishing the team will really shine.


I wanted to make a small note in this thread.

In my recent forum reply, I challenged Jorge for why he criticizes Autark moreso than Aragon Black in his statement. This reflection is not directly related to my perception of Aragon Black’s importance or place in the Flock program. It was more about feeling like Autark was being scapegoated for the dysfunctions in Flock, when it is beyond any one team, or one mistake.

I agree with every point that Luke has made in his analysis, but think needing a designer needs to be thought about more seriously. And at the same time:

I’m supportive of this proposal.

Regarding this, we have $1.24m allocated to Payroll and will be 12 full-timers in a week. (3 non-devs, 9 devs). That comes out to an average of ~$103,333


My personal views on the draft AB proposal:

  1. “Aragon Fundraising” & the “DAOJones platform” are both extremely important projects for the Aragon ecosystem. I envisage that the DAOJones platform will play a pivotal role in driving demand-side activity to the Fundraising product. Collectively, they might also be one of the largest drivers in demand for the ANT token. I can see @lkngtn’s logic in delaying the marketing push until the DAOJones platform is also ready but wanted to see if you had other shorter term ideas for how to get 2-sided traction to the Fundraising product in the interim?

  2. So… when will the DAOJones platform be ready? The deliverables for the DAO Jones platform state that after 1 year, only the front end and research will be completed (by implication I assume from this that the backend development won’t have started?). Given the importance of this platform to the Fundraising product, I would really like to see the delivery date of the DAOJones platform brought forward. There are many many crowdfunding platforms on which to draw inspiration from, 375 in North America alone. There are even companies like Thrinacia which provide a crowdfunding white labelling service. I’m not suggesting that you use them as I’ve done zero diligence on them but I am suggesting to think about ways to bring forward the DAO Jones platform delivery date.

Have you considered partnering with an existing crowdfunding platform? Ex: Tokenmarket which are already regulated (at least in the UK and maybe the EU too with passporting). It could significantly reduce both costs and time to market.

Another important point which deserves to be addressed in greater detail is the legal regulations that DAOJones may fall under. There’s a reason most crowdfunding platforms are limited to a specific geography and it’s because the regulations in each operating country can be a bitch. Of course, this becomes drastically simpler when no securities are involved - but if that’s the intention, what’s the strategy to diligence projects and make sure DAOJones is not promoting security offerings? I can also see the logic in going down the fully decentralised route as a potential skirt-around, although this understandably adds significant technical development work.

  1. Aragon Stack / Build up Aragon’s Development Infrastructure / rest of proposed projects - Whilst I think all of these are very worthy projects to be working on, I would like to see more focus on just the Fundraising + DAOJones. Indiegogo raised $56m. Kickstarter pulled if off in $10m. What you want to build is probably more complex than both of these given it’s decentralised nature. So why not just focus on these? I say this merely because I deem them to be relatively more important for the Aragon ecosystem and they are very challenging to build as it is.

  2. There have been some quite heated discussions on the forum this week concerning Flock teams and monolithic proposals. It’s probably apparent from the above that I’m in the camp of having Flock teams laser focus around a single product, or a very narrow set of complimentary products. Building & scaling a single product is hard enough as it is. I appreciate that has not been the norm to date with Flock teams and a certain precedent has been set. But it’s not too late to change :slight_smile:

This said, I’m also acutely aware that we as a community need to do a lot more to make sure that Flock and Nest teams are given the support they need to deliver. I’m leaning towards functions such as Research, Marketing, Onboarding/sales, Support being independent DAOs instead of projects within a specific Flock team. This is to avoid duplication of resources across Flock & Nest teams as well as better network wide coordination & collaboration.


Hi AB team! Thanks for submitting your proposal. My feedback:

Deliverables I01 to I02 (Fundraising and DAOJones platform) are key. This is a lot of work. You should focus on this. Make sure you have the right people to take these deliverables fully under your wings and create a shipping cadence.

Deliverables I03 (Aragon Stack). I think this is important as well. But I have the same questions Luke pointed out: what is the timeline for this? how is the work on this going to be coordinated with the rest of the stack?

Deliverable I04 (Pando. 18.5% of budget). I want to have Pando. I really do. But I have two questions: 1) Have you validated with potential Aragon users the current demand for it? I have been talking with lots of potential Aragon users and it has been mentioned once. Yet the project that mentioned it is not ready to start using it right away. Thus, I don’t see this as a priority for the project. Not at least in the next 12 months. We are a pre-product-market fit. We can’t just go for all. 2) Assuming this is a validated priority, When do you think you will be ready (manpower wise) to start working on it?

Deliverable I05 (On-boarding. 18.5% of budget). I’m conflicted with most of the deliverables here. A lot of them are not connected with the needs nor purpose of the project. Let’s take them one by one:

  • Legal integrations. What exactly you want to do here? How exactly is this connected to the purpose of the project? Don’t get me wrong. I know this is important for users and not an easy task (I’m a lawyer myself). We have great connections with the crypto legal community already. We have great connections with the most interesting projects and communities working on this. We can integrate those projects with Aragon. We can fund the right people with the right skills to do this via the CFDAO or the Nest program. But, what does this have to do with your roadmap? How many lawyers are in the team and in what jurisdictions?

Also, how did you validate that something like the Contributive Commons License is an urgent thing to prioritize? I’m not saying this is not important for the ecosystem and the world. I want to see something like this. I’m just not sure the direct impact that such an effort will bring to the project, today. We are pre-product/market fit. The need for such a license hasn’t come up once during my conversations with potential users. Thus, I’m curious to know how have you validated this need with potential Aragon users?

  • Support. These things are intrinsic to the role of being a Flock team. To put an example, A1 supports other flock teams, the Nest program, the CFDAO, and many more initiatives. Everybody in the team does it apart from their main role. We don’t get additional pay for this.

  • Aragon Academy. How have you validated this? Why don’t we experiment with such an idea first before putting it on your roadmap? Have it funded via the CFDAO and validate the direct impact on bringing users that will stay. @cemfdagdelen, it seems like this is something your team at the DAO incubator would like to be involved with. Have them present a concrete proposal with concrete outcomes and deliverables to the CFDAO, for example. Explain the traction that you guys have had with the incubator so far. How is the work? How are the classes/workshops? Who is the audience? If it turns out that this is key to get users, I will be the first one to ask you to include it in the roadmap and build academies all around the world.

  • Onboarding. You guys keep saying how much of an effort this is. I get that. But, right now if you bring to Aragon 5 users that will stay it will help more than if you bring 10000 that will create a DAO and never use it again.

Deliverable I06 (Black blog). I’m also very conflicted with this one. I think is great you guys want to have your own blog. But, how is this directly connected to the purpose of the project? I understand that the interviews, book and trilingual blogs are nice things to see in the ecosystem. But, we can’t put everything under the wings of the project. Not yet. We are pre-product-market fit.

I know you have adjusted the budget from $300k to $58k (after feedback). But I have to say. It is difficult for me to justify even a $58k cost when we are funding the development of governance apps built by the community with $5k. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

In the future, once we have lots of users and the project is self-sustainable I can see the project expanding into other things. We can take the podcast, editorial, academy, legal endeavors. But today we are not in that stage yet. We (A1 included) need to be very connected with the purpose and current needs of the project. Otherwise, we are not going to succeed.

To conclude, I think this proposal needs a “cleanup”. Deliverables I01 to I03 are in connection with the purpose and current needs of the project. Deliverables I04 to I06 are not connected to the purpose nor the current needs of the project. At least you haven’t shown that you have validated those ideas. They look like a kind of a “wishlist” (no offense). I don’t think it is fair to force the community to accept all or nothing.

I don’t agree with Luke in that we should let this proposal pass as it is. Even when we see things in the proposal that does not make sense. This is a 1-year proposal. If we think there is a proposal that has been approved without much diligence, we should address this now as well. In the best way for the project and the relevant team. But to say let’s leave the issues here for another year because we were not diligent enough with other previous proposals is crazy to me. Flock is a very beta project. We knew we were going to have to learn and change things as we go.


Dear friends,

Before I start replying to some of the points outlined in your comments I would like to thank many of you for your constructive engagement. After all this is what this process should be about: community evaluation and iteration and not posturing and judgement. So I’m grateful that this post attracted mainly the former. I also would like to underline an important point: while drafting the proposal we didn’t write about “what we are asking money for” and more about “what is our strategy as a team, workflow and bandwidth occupation like?”. As a decentralized team which one would you like to optimize for? If Aragon is looking for contractors, we have been mislead. If we are actually a community, a “big family” I think our tone was the right one to reduce transactionality and increase empathy and transparency(which are essential ingredients for much needed collaboration).

I will try to respond to some of these comments while hoping to expose some of my sensibilities which arose during the recent drama.

Disclaimer: This is a personal post. The feelings in our team are mixed but with a shared disappointment in the seeming failure of genuine relationships. I will address the comments and concerns in this post from my point of view and leave especially the technical commentary to my teammates.

I01, I02 - Fundraising & DAOJones
Most comments here seem to acknowledge the importance of this deliverable and there seems to be consensus that our focus should be sharpened towards AF. Everyone here who spent due effort knows that we are operating as the embodiment of this razor focus since the last 6 months. While our tech team barely had any bandwidth to allocate to any task unassociated to fundraising, same rings true for our research and onboarding efforts. Things that look like separate deliverables here are extremely intertwined and supplementary. However we were aiming, with this proposal, to hire much needed development power, so that our tech team can work more like humans rather than carriage horses.

I05 - Onboarding
I can speak most aptly on this initiative since this has been pretty central to my work over the last 6 months. Product-Market Fit has been thrown around quite a bit in the recent forum “exchanges”. I see onboarding as the central & user-facing element of this notion where value creation and value capture meets. On this front, we have been engaging projects which have the potential to bring immense value and recognition to Aragon platform. It must be noted that there is a threshold beyond which these interactions will become way smoother, specifically following the deployment and successful experimentation of a few divergent use-cases. Our thesis was never to replicate the # of DAOs on mainnet KPI, but rather taking an impact/quality intensive route to performance evaluation. Everyone who has lend us an ear knows that.

I06 - BlackBlog (just a comment)
The fact that there are different blogs and different ways of working is a central element of any decentralization process. Flock was built to give freedom to peripheral teams working towards the same goal : « Fight for freedom ». And the idea of flock, politically, was to enable a great diversity of “freedom struggles” which implies different ways working, different ways of fighting. It seems that this objective of Flock is not achieved because reading of all the previous comments related to “flock drama” actually leaves an air of control, pressure, and competition whose objective is to bend these different ways of doing in such a way that they “match” with the tastes of a uniform mentality.

But I must tell you that both the timing and the tone of the discourse following Luke’s post has in fact been very unfortunate*. The amount of uncertainty it created around my teams and my own workflow has been very disruptive. Imagine working on a deliverable which will turn a new page in p2p collaboration and being misrepresented on a public domain with no prior communication or employment of the right facts. It is an extremely awkward position to find yourself in, while trying to represent Aragon to many projects which you engage with on a daily basis.

+Everything about the runway is predictable since the beginning and Aragon made this call.
-But the verdict is that Flock doesnt work after 6 months
+We have a due diligence process and community scrutiny.
-But we act as if all was a surprise and Flock are leeching off of Aragon
+We have ANVs where votes are submitted anonymously.
-But there were almost no votes cast against AB or Autark.

While I welcome all of the above concerns, I see a pattern which I cannot ignore. As AB we need a clear message in order to understand if we are wanted or not. Because besides the sincere support** from the community, the waters became very murky for us.

*I have “mixed feelings” about the “healthy discourse” we are having here. Aragon Forum has been dear and inspiring to me. However I do not believe the roots of this Flock re-evaluation was made in the public domain. I have personally experienced a dramatic reduction in communication prior to this post, even with regards to crucial work related coordination tasks. I had no idea this would follow, and to be honest its heartbreaking. When openness works half-way, the public domain becomes a tool for politics.

** Thanks to those who reached out with their sincere support and urged me to speak publicly about my concerns. You are what makes this community the most special one in the space.

*** Besides our strategic and ideological disagreements I am grateful for your uncompromising self-reflection @lkngtn


while drafting the proposal we didn’t write about “what we are asking money for” and more about “what is our strategy as a team, workflow and bandwidth occupation like?”

Ok. Then, how do I evaluate the proposal? How do I evaluate the numbers? If we want the community to participate in this process we need clear information.

As a decentralized team which one would you like to optimize for? If Aragon is looking for contractors, we have been mislead. If we are actually a community, a “big family”

We tend to forget that the AA is responsible for the diligent management of the funds of the project. The AA and the community need to do due diligence before approving a 1.5/2.3million proposal. This has nothing to do with being decentralized or being a family or contractors.

Things that look like separate deliverables here are extremely intertwined and supplementary.

Ok. Then, can you present the proposal showing what is intertwined with what? And what is supplementary with what? I don’t know how to evaluate this proposal anymore. I’m just trying to do my due diligence.

However we were aiming, with this proposal, to hire much needed development power, so that our tech team can work more like humans rather than carriage horses.

This is great. Because rn you have 3 developers and you want to take on the Fundraising, DAOjones, AragonPM, AragonJS lite. However, I have made questions on other deliverables that represent the 41.5% of the allocation of work and budget in the proposal. Those concrete questions are not being answered.

If what you presented as a proposal is not “what we are asking money for” but “what is our strategy as a team, workflow and bandwidth occupation like?” How do I evaluate the numbers of the proposal? Again, I’m just trying to do my due diligence.

I06 - BlackBlog (just a comment)
The fact that there are different blogs and different ways of working is a central element of any decentralization process. Flock was built to give freedom to peripheral teams working towards the same goal : « Fight for freedom ». And the idea of flock, politically, was to enable a great diversity of “freedom struggles” which implies different ways working, different ways of fighting

Yet the project has not unlimited resources. There is a need to optimize resources. This has nothing to do with decentralization

Imagine working on a deliverable which will turn a new page in p2p collaboration and being misrepresented on a public domain with no prior communication or employment of the right facts

You are making unfounded accusations with no concrete examples. It’s difficult to answer in a direct way. But in case you are referring to me, you presented a proposal, I reviewed it and gave my feedback, point by point, making concrete questions. I think this is the intention of this thread, no?. This is the AGP process where the community should participate, evaluate and form an educated decision.

+Everything about the runway is predictable since the beginning and Aragon made this call

Are you saying that if Aragon finds that there are things that are not working, the project should not do anything about it? Also, I don’t know how predictable can you be with crypto.

-But the verdict is that Flock doesn’t work after 6 months

I would say after 8 months, the expectations of the program have no been met so far. There are issues that should be addressed. Here is my post on the concrete issues (this is my opinion). Also, I’m noticing there are different interpretations of what exactly the Flock program is.

+We have a due diligence process and community scrutiny.

This is not the case yet. I give you an example. I’m trying to do my due diligence in this proposal using this thread. I’m feeling accused of suspicious orchestrations. Also, your answer to my questions is very general, it leaves me with even more questions. Your answer basically says that the proposal is your strategy and it comes from a decentralized team that is part of the Aragon big family.

This doesn’t look like having a diligence process and community scrutiny for the evaluation of these types of proposals. I’m not saying this to hurt you or anybody from the AB team. I’m just expressing my personal opinion. We haven’t mastered those processes. This one of the reasons we are having all this drama.

-But we act as if all was a surprise and Flock are leeching off of Aragon

I don’t know what you mean by this. But, if I tell you that I wasn’t surprised while reading certain parts of your proposal, I’d be lying to you.

+We have ANVs where votes are submitted anonymously.
-But there were almost no votes cast against AB or Autark.

I don’t know exactly what is your point here. At this stage of the AGP process, we haven’t surpassed some of the limitations and problems of the traditional voting systems. Right now it’s difficult for the community to be able to make informed decisions. Don’t take this as an attack against you and the AB or Autark team.

However I do not believe the roots of this Flock re-evaluation was made in the public domain. I have personally experienced a dramatic reduction in communication prior to this post, even with regards to crucial work related coordination tasks. I had no idea this would follow, and to be honest its heartbreaking. When openness works half-way, the public domain becomes a tool for politics.

You are making ugly and unfunded accusations with no concrete evidence. I can’t address the accusations directly. In case you don’t remember, two weeks ago A1 launched 0.8. The product team has been working like crazy for more or less two months. The last weeks until the launch has been none stop. Sometimes is very difficult to keep up with all the calls, comms channels, and messages. It is just humanly impossible.

I’m here looking at all the channels we have. I, or any member of the team, have always replied to all your messages. We are not the horrible people that you guys think we are. I’m sorry you and the AB team feel this way.


Hi everyone,

Reading all the posts published last week we had planned to provide a detailed overview of our thoughts. Unfortunately, the more it goes, the more these posts sound noisey and inconsistent. We are afraid posting something else now would just add noise over the already exhausting noise.

The TL;DR is that Aragon Black will not apply to Flock on this ANV. Here is the short-version rational.

  1. Given the current situation, we would not even know on which basis to apply: scope, period, budget, etc. [since no one seems to agree on these anymore].
  2. If our proposal was to pass it would look like we made it thanks to a trick or a procedural loophole.
  3. More importantly, the path Aragon is taking is blurry [with respects to its values and inner working] and we don’t want to apply to something we are not sure to fully support.

We’re gonna keep building Aragon things on our side and hope everyone calm down in the meanwhile. We truly hope the Aragon we believed in is not about to die [beyond the runaway issue which is probably not the biggest one] and that great things are to happen with all of us.

The AB Team