Thank you for your kind words. Regarding the community mediums we are trying to make a distinction between:
The Governance Forum (this forum as it was a request to keep this for it exclusively and not to mix with technical or support issues)
The Support Forum (for technical and other support questions and deeper conversations which is indexed by google so over time more traffic will be driven here)
Discord (instant/light conversations, reminders, etc., but it is a bit disorganized and content gets lost in chatter)
AN DAO Notion (workspace for collaboration and static, organized content)
Dework (bounty management and day-to-day task management)
This obviously has to be a community effort but IMHO falls under Community Onboarding (@Shawncubbedge) Ops Guild (@anukriti10@lion917 ). What do you all think?
Hey Spectra, I agree it has to involve other stakeholders. This is an operational decision first and foremost. To clarify however I probably disagree with the split you presented:
Support forum should handle support topics only
This forum is the Aragon project forum - we use it for governance discussions as well, but this is the main forum related to the project. If partnership discussions are to be held in a forum it shall be this one.
Since 50+ full-time contributors to the project are substantially more active in Discord it would be great if such discussions actually get linked there as well
There is a new growth guild @fmurphy they can work with @lion917. Furthermore, since last week Aragon has a Head of Communications who can guide this effort to ensure strategic alignment
Have tangible results from collaboration with “like services” guilds in other communities - In Progress
Managed to combine Otoco, Gnosis and Client so we created Aragon’s first legal wrapper.
Bi weekly call transparency and auto transcription - In Progress
Increase contributor engagement having at least 3 long term active contributors - In Progress
Set backup delegations which shadow other delegated roles within the guild - In Progress
Additional deliverables
Finding the bug in the code regarding the problem with Aragon Client and Polygon mainnet and working with the DevOps team debugging it.
Requested and allocated moderator permissions for core contributors on Discord to further decentralize moderation tasks. Sorted out channels with no moderator access to ensure all public channels can be accessed. - Completed
Using Dework and keeping up to date with new developments, functionalities and features to prepare for DAOwide adoption - Ongoing
Finished bounties
Recreating/ Debugging Tech Doc. III Part Dev. (CLI) - (DTG.P2.M4.N1)
May contributor support training (DTG.P2.M5.N1)
Importing Tech Doc. III and IV Part Dev (Govern + Vocdoni) (DTG.P2.M5.N5)
I opened access to the research page into the most popular languages. If that does not work I will need to speak to someone managing Notion as my powers are limited
‘Survey from’ was a typo.
Anson is going to get back to you here regarding the documentation for this work.
Long term in our understanding is by the end of Season 1. In April we have onboarded 2 contributors who have been training and working on different bounties. With our new bounties we are working towards attracting more talent who could stay with us long term.
Please find links to the Notion card or Dework task of the bounties below.
Should you need any more information or have any questions, please let me know.
@lion917@jessicasmith@eaglelex are all encouraged to critique what’s going on here… the super fun part is that we can use EVM Crispr to mint our new tokens and i think this is what makes that project so special = it should open up some doors for real development in established daos looking to move more mainstream
@Carla78 - dropped a question in the language selection Notion
@alibama Love the initiative! Certainly, the guide can use some polishing but the deliverable is marked as “in progress” so it makes sense. It seems though it’s just the tokens are minted on Aragon and then stored in a Gnosis Safe…it’s not an Aragon DAO with a wrapper by any means. Or am I deeply misunderstanding the guide?
All we’re doing here is minting new tokens for a DAO so that the DAO may exercise a legal instrument. As mentioned in the Otoco AMA held this morning there really is no such thing as a fully wrapped DAO (and i should probably edit my language accordingly).
What does exist = a way for DAO’s to leverage an LLC instrument, and begin using that legal primitive to then acquire traditional fintech assets such as bank accounts, insurance etc… we’ll even have a simpler way to pay taxes! (exclamation mark = snark)
As you point out = for Aragon to really be leveraged more strategically we would need to work with tools such as evm-crispr, openlaw.io perhaps, etc… to orchestrate additional process unique to a DAO = there’s no implicit connection between the inner-workings of a DAO and the functioning of the LLC.
My hope is that the leadership team may see some longer term value in this small proof-of-concept and be receptive to additional proposals in this space that would begin to address these orchestrations.
Let’s take the narrow definition of a DAO as addresses (defined either through a permissioned list, or by holding a specific token) that govern a shared on chain resource.
The way I understand the described design what we are “wrapping” is a Gnosis Safe so the “DAO members” are the signers on that Safe, NOT the holders of the token (leaving aside the fact that the tokens are held in the wallet)…it’s a very useful thing, but I don’t see how the token or Aragon has a role in it
Unless I am misunderstanding this and every member of the Example DAO should create a multisig where they hold their tokens in which case we are wrapping the individuals as LLCs, not the DAO itself
i really think we should get legal in on this = @Tayy or @eaglelex or @lion917 want to weigh in?
all i know is that from the people i’m working on next steps with it appears to be sufficient… the tokens themselves become part of a legal entity, and that means that if i choose to use something like c14.money to trade the tokens on VISA to grab some fiat I should be on the right side of the law.
perhaps when the next aragon app thing comes out we can do some host-the-party with lawyers and get some grindier reviews?
we’ve been working some “legal wrapper” work, however thusfar only @fartunov has really provided a thoughtful critique (which i genuinely appreciate). Frankly all of his points are pretty interesting, however I don’t feel competent to respond.
Could you help us out here? the way things are organized presently
Aragon - provides tokens and governance model
Gnosis - creates a multisig wallet that interacts with Otoco
Otoco - provides the LLC and signs it with the Gnosis vault as the “main signature”
Otoco - imports the token contract from Aragon as the “shares” of the LLC
my interpretation of this is that the functional aspects of the DAO could then be regulated within the Delaware LLC, however I am still not a lawyer™
Hey, thought I would weigh in here since I’m from OtoCo and can probably speak on some of the technical and legal limitations.
As @alibama said, it’s pretty difficult to “wrap” a DAO in its entirety. It’s possible sometimes, with very small DAOs.
But Aragon and OtoCo can work together to bring entity management to web3. Here’s one idea:
Let’s say Example DAO of 4 people creates an OtoCo LLC (via multisig for low trust or single sig if you have plenty of trust).
LLC can have its “shares” be a certain Aragon governance token and all holders are considered members of the LLC. So you’re a member of Example DAO, and you’re also a member of Example LLC.
Now, for LLCs to add members, make big commercial decisions, remove members, acquire assets, etc. these things often require consensus among members. All of that consensus could be reached on Aragon (or any other DAO management platform). So what you’re left with is an OtoCo LLC where Owner/Shareholder Meetings, Member Voting, Meeting Minutes, etc, is done via Aragon instead of paper, pen, and zoom meetings.
Thanks for the clarification Michael - it is really helpful!
My previous understanding was that the Example LLC members are the multisig signers, not the token holders and those two groups are not necessarily the same.
The notion space provides no rationale for choosing these languages
What is your best estimate of a metric to determine whether it is worth allocating further resources towards multilanguage efforts to avoid sunk cost situation where we go “oh well we have some documents now in Spanish, let’s keep translating”, and start offering support and start a blog and a separate telegram and so on and so on without a validation if there is actual need
Please link the respective spaces where this progress is documented
Contingent on responding to the above I give my support for release of funding 3/3.
Another discussion with @brent is that since Season 0 one of the objectives of the guild was to professionalize the support role. We are nearing the end of season 1 and this is still not live. I understand there is some consensus and understanding across current guild members about process and scope but having this documented is still lacking:
which type of questions does support answer and what requests are outside of its scope
which types of questions are escalated or handed over to other guilds or directed to external resources
e.g. (my examples might be completely off-base, but they are here to illustrate the point)
Someone comes and asks to connect a Gnosis Safe to a Client based DAO?
Someone has a problem with their Client DAO and we have determined the problem is with the Polygon network, how do we proceed?
Someone comes enquiring about conviction voting or NFT-based census
For these past two seasons to be considered a successful experiment and to have confidence in the Main DAO funding, the guild should be able to demonstrate some professionalization of the function
The notion space provides no rationale for choosing these languages
Not sure why we are discussing this in the forum. I thought we resolved this on a call we had when I gave you a link to a notion page on the rationale for choosing these languages that you had already commented on June 3rd and I also explained the move to go to Spanish with you which you then understood. What you did point out is that the conclusion to our findings could be explained a little better, I updated the notion page for this… https://www.notion.so/aragonorg/User-Tech-docs-Translation-7fcb376f892d4413a2833be479fb50ae
What is your best estimate of a metric to determine whether it is worth allocating further resources towards multilanguage efforts to avoid sunk cost situation where we go “oh well we have some documents now in Spanish, let’s keep translating”, and start offering support and start a blog and a separate telegram and so on and so on without a validation if there is actual need
This proposal says nothing about allocating further resources or to keep translating, it only says two languages will be translated, end of story. The decision to move forward with a language past documentation is a separate discussion that is out of scope of this report. I have never heard anything about an Aragon blog or Telegram in another language.