I like @lkngtn’s post declaring his positions on the ANV-4 proposals and will do the same. Thank you Luke for the inspiration.
My ANV-4 Positions
AGP-81: Common court with Kleros
I will be voting No.
I am a fan of the open source ethos, of working together on common software and standards rather than duplicating efforts. But I also have seen a lot of good come from forks or alternative implementations on similar ideas, leading to experimentation and competition that ends up being better for users (more options, more incentive to improve and be better than competitors).
Because of the way that the discussion around this proposal has been carried out, I perceive incompatibilities between the different court teams at a personal level. And I also believe the incentives are not well aligned to collaborate rather than compete. For these reasons, and the reasons mentioned above about the good that can come from working on competing implementations rather than collaborating, I believe it will be best for Aragon Court users and ANT holders if Kleros and Aragon Court continue as separate development efforts.
AGP-84: Adding Flock track to AGP-1
I will not be voting on this proposal.
I do not have any experience interacting with the Flock program or enough knowledge to know whether this proposal will hurt or help the program or the AGP process.
I will be voting No.
I was not at AraCon but I have watched the videos and perused the Twitter hashtag to try and get a feel for what it was like there. People seem to have enjoyed themselves. But was it worth it, especially when compared to other things the money could have been spent on? If the price of the first AraCon was similar to what is being asked for in this proposal I would argue “no” (not having been an attendee but judging from the outside).
The AraCon videos on YouTube have about a few thousand views all put together. And I have not heard any stories of significant breakthroughs or connections made at the event that justify the expense, or that could not have happened at a smaller event with a more modest budget.
That is not to say AraCon was not well organized, or that people did not have a good time; it appears both of these are true. But I do believe it was not the most cost effective use of the project’s funding. As an outsider looking in, there does not feel like there has been enough ROI from the first AraCon to justify spending that much again.
I echo Luke’s opinion that having smaller events, ideally geographically distributed to minimize travel costs and increase inclusiveness and accessibility, could be a more cost effective way to bring the community together. And if we want to unite the global community at one event, maybe an online event would be the most cost effective option, or a smaller event that only brings the most active community members together (ideally with the costs better distributed among event participants, as it seems like currently the AA/ ANT holders are footing the bulk of the bill).
I will be voting Yes.
The DAO created in this proposal seems like a nice compliment to the CFDAO. The amount requested is a reasonably low enough amount to experiment with this rewards model. I look forward to seeing how this experiment turns out and may even participate myself.
AGP-89: Modify Aragon Network Fiscal Year
I will be voting Yes.
I like the new vote schedule proposed in this AGP.
AGP-90: 1Hive DAO Sponsorship Proposal
I will be voting Yes
The 1Hive DAO seems like it has been a relatively cost effective contributor to the community. I am a fan of the Aragon-related projects they have worked on so far. I am hesitant about committing another 300,000 DAI plus 100,000 ANT per year in expenses, but will give this proposal a shot to see if they can prove their worth.
AGP-92: Flock Funding for Frame
I will be voting Yes.
I have used Frame more and more and like the direction the product is going in. There are still some features missing that prevent it from being my main Ethereum interface (such as the ability to set custom gas parameters) but overall I have been impressed with this tool. I want to see its development continue. Therefore I will vote yes on this proposal.
That said, this will likely be the last time I vote to support funding Frame, at least at this amount. I am hesitant to commit to 568,000 DAI plus 50,000 ANT per year in additional expenses for the foreseeable future. I would like to see the cost of Frame development spread out over the Ethereum ecosystem (rather than the AA / ANT holders bearing the entirety of Frame development costs) and / or Frame figure out a monetization model that can make development self-sustainable.
Side note: I would also like to see Frame mentioned more outside of the Aragon ecosystem. Frame is Ethereum infrastructure: it should be no less popular than MetaMask, Status, WalletConnect, and other prominent infrastructure projects in the Ethereum ecosystem. I hope some of the funds from this proposal will be spent on “marketing” / “business development” types of activities that will raise awareness about Frame and get it in front of more users of dapps other than Aragon. This could lead to what I mentioned above, which is the possibility for acquiring funding from sources other than the AA treasury.
AGP-103: Aragon Network Budget
I will be voting Yes.
(disclaimer, I’m a co-author of this proposal)
I believe I made a thorough enough case for this proposal in the original thread introducing the idea.
I have also created a spreadsheet (which I have linked in the discussion thread for this proposal too) showing that, if our treasury were held in 100% DAI, this budget would extend the Aragon Network runway 60 quarters (or 15 years) into the future. This should be plenty of time to find out if the market wants what we are selling or not (also time to develop the market if it is not yet big enough). By contrast, at current spending levels, the Aragon Network has at most four-to-five years of runway. Still a decent amount of time, but not enough for a project like this (building a new jurisdiction) in my humble opinion.
I will be voting Yes.
400,000 ANT per year (or ~1% of the ANT supply per year) is a relatively large amount to spend. So whatever it is spent on better be worth it. I believe giving Aragon app developers a boost of confidence and early investment in Aragon as a platform could produce ROI that justifies this significant expense. Much of the benefit of Aragon comes from it being an app platform and I would like to see both more apps and developers of those apps rewarded for their efforts. This proposal could help achieve both.
I would ask App Mining program managers and ANT holders to seek answers to these questions as this program’s effectiveness is evaluated:
-
Are the stated KPIs too easily gamed? Org treasury values are quite low, and so a resourceful app development team would not have to work too hard to create a bunch of “fake” orgs and activity and pump up their treasury values enough to qualify for rewards.
-
Are app development teams developing independent business models or is this program simply creating more dependents? We want to ensure that apps will continue to be developed and improved over time, without becoming a burden on our treasury, otherwise this program will quickly become unsustainable.
-
Does this program align app developer incentives long term? As far as I can tell, ANT earned in this program is not vested. Since developers are likely to want to use their rewards to pay their bills, they might cash out their ANT right away, putting sell pressure on the market and also not making them as invested in the long-term success of their app and the Aragon Network.
AGP-105: Allow finance proposals that could otherwise fit in Nest or Flock
I will be voting Yes.
Before this proposal was published, I was not aware of the AA policy that this proposal seeks to change. But now that I am aware, I believe this policy should change. It seems like an unnecessary, artificial limitation that is against the spirit of AGP-1 and the Aragon Network as a DAO governed by ANT holders.
I will be voting No.
There is a saying in the software development world that “premature optimization is the root of all evil”. I believe that building an Aragon Chain is a premature optimization at this point:
-
From what I understand, the problem caused by EIP-1884 has been mitigated already, so there is no emergency here that warrants building a new chain. Aragon developers can now take the lessons learned from this experience and make better decisions about how to work with Ethereum protocol developers to ensure smooth operation of their contracts going forward. Likewise, I hope Ethereum protocol developers have learned to be more conservative and communicative about the changes they make that could / will impact downstream contract developers.
-
If Aragon developers believe that the cost of the mainchain is holding back a significant number of users from adopting Aragon, this hypothesis could be tested without developing a new chain, for example by deploying Aragon on an existing cheap-to-use Ethereum sidechain such as xDAI. If we can show that usage begins to take off due to the decreased costs of using the sidechain then that may provide the evidence needed to justify an investment in building an Aragon-focused chain.
Building a new blockchain is no small feat. This will be a significant undertaking that I predict will cost upwards of 1 million DAI per year, including full node development plus validator rewards plus infrastructure development and maintenance. I do not think such an expense is justifiable at this time.
AGP-112: Oppose any change to Ethereum’s mining algorithm before Ethereum 2.0
I will be voting Yes.
(disclaimer, I am the author of this proposal)
I believe the proposal text speaks for itself.
AGP-116: Comprehensive Aragon Bug Bounty Program
I will not be voting on this proposal.
I do not have any experience interacting with the existing bug bounty program nor do I have enough knowledge to know whether this proposal will hurt or help the program.
AGP-117: Comprehensive Aragon Security Review Program
I will be voting No.
I believe the reasons Luke laid out for voting no on this proposal are reasonable enough to vote no with him.
AGP-118: Aragon Comprehensive Legal Review Program
I will not be voting on this proposal.
I do not have strong feelings about this proposal one way or the other.
