Following on from this thread and this thread we propose we create a Community Rewards DAO (CRDAO). Its goal is to acknowledge and reward informal contributions and encourage community members to take initiative and create value in a permissionless fashion.
The CRDAO will reward contributions to the Aragon ecosystem with small amounts of ANT. Its purpose is to reward people for contributions they do and encourage them to do more voluntarily without necessarily an expectation of specific remuneration. it differs from CFDAO in that recipients do not apply for funds, CRDAO rewards are recognition for service to the Aragon Community.
CRDAO will have a fixed weekly budget. This will provide a runway from this AGP to the next. The budget will be divided amongst nominated Aragon community members using Autarks Dot Voting app. The reward policy will be based on the 1Hive model, however a key difference being that any member of the Aragon forum can nominate anyone else, but it is up to the DAO members to actually vote on those nominations. Details on the proposed structure and settings of the CRDAO can be found here
I really like the purpose you are looking to fulfill with this proposal. Effectively, giving economic rewards for communities contributions is something that Aragon definitively should work (and experiment) about.
But achieving so is actually very complex (not complicated, complex) as we are talking about matching peoples expectations, skills, expertise , quality in their deliverables with an “objective as possible” number (DAI in this case) that would compensate, their time and effort as well as their capacity in achieving a good efficiency and effectiveness in their work.
Centralized systems have figured out this pretty well, you just need one agent deciding the task that needs to be done, set a price, publish it and wait for someone that will do the work for the offered price. But doing this in a decentralized fashion is something that still requires some ad-hoc design and development. Aragon product is just not ready (yet) to do this kind of stuff. The way I see it, you need three different decision taking mechanism that should be operating in a day to day basics (let’s please afford that voting is not the best way to approach this, people just don’t like to vote that often):
Task division and selections: who’s deciding what kind of work actually need to be done? How do we decide on what task are actually adding value to the network? what task would worth nothing? how to avoid to reward to overlapping tasks that maybe other people in the other side of the network had already done it… and even better?
Task allocation: how we would decide who’s doing the task when we have more than one person willing to do it?
Reward distribution: what are the proper prices to be set for each task? what is the validation process that the DAO should follow to have proof that the work has been done, with the expected quality and within the acceptable timelines?
I realize that some of this points are figured out already by your proposal (although I really like SourceCred, I think they’re lacking a way to measure effectiveness of the contributions), but again, I don’t think voting is a good solution, even less rinkeby-mainnet double-voting just because TPS is not ready for mainnet.
In conclusion, I am sure this is something Aragon and any DAO really need to have in place, but I’m personally very skeptic about the approach you guys are proposing. If I may, I would propose this HL alternative solutions:
Modify the AGP, proposing a centralized, trusted, delegated steward, selected and evaluated by the DAO, who will take a roll in deciding what are the tasks that really need to be done (or those that doesn’t?) so you can agilize the process and avoid burning people by asking them to continuously vote.
Apply for an Aragon NEST purposed to develop an MVP designed ad-hoc for this (maybe an integration with gitcoin or Bounties Network would be cool (and we could even ask some funds from them (?)).
Hope this input will give you some food for thoughts so you can refine your proposal here! All the best!
I think there may be a bit of confusion as to what the proposal actually entails, hopefully, I can make it a bit clearer here and update the proposal accordingly
Firstly, this is not to replace CFDAO. There are no tasks, no deliverables and no expectations required for a reward. Rewards are not payments for services rendered nor are they compensation. Rewards are given as an appreciation and recognition for playing an active role and providing value to the community. Also All rewards will be in ANT. The point is to reward community contribution with a stake in the network And increase active participation in AGPs
This is a system that 1Hive have had for a while and already works very well. you can find more information about how it works here and a link to the 1Hive dot voting app here to see how it works in practice
there is a fixed weekly budget.
you cannot apply for a reward. you must be nominated by another community member.
All valid nominations are voted on by the DAO members using the Dot voting app.
Dot voting allows you to use your voting weight as preferences over the candidates
just to clarify. Rewards will not be paid according to one’s credits accumulates, these credits will be be used to as voting weights in the CRDAO. As the proposal currently stands, every member will have an equal voting weight in the Dot voting app. Any active member of the Aragon community can join the DAO and vote. What the source cred will do is give more voting weight to those who have contributed more (according to the algorithm)
On the point of the effectiveness of the contribution, I agree. This is why we are experimenting, there is nothing like this in the Aragon ecosystem, we will have a new template in 0.8 called “Reputation” however there is not an app that will calculate this programmaticall . Since we will not be rewarding funds based on the metric this is a safe
What this allows us to do is to experiment with the algorithm and in a real-world DAO but with low risk. This way we can refine and battle test it. IMO this will be a key app for opensource projects, a key market for Aragon DAOs.
Double voting is not strictly nessasary. The main net DAO could have a 2/3 admin to transfer the funds or the balances could just build up and all members vote at a slower cadence. 2 DAOs is not ideal but it has its benefits. It allows experimentation on test net without any real funds at stake with the implementation in a lower risk environment. It should also be noted this is has been done successfully by the Mesh team.
I hope that clarifies some of your issues
I’m super excited about this initiative, in fact, it was one of my favourite bits of the proposal. I will coordinate with them for sure but I think this proposal is differentiated enough to stand on its own merits.
The primary purpose of this AGP is to incentivise and reward community participation within the Aragon Network as a whole not necessarily to find a sustainable revenue source
This is also to be an experiment of the SourceCred application, which is as of now still just a community endeavour, not part of the Autark road map
It sounds like you’re describing bounties. The CRDAO will not have bounties and the CRDAO will not be rewarding specific tasks. The goal it to use allocations and dot voting apps to recognize and reward community members. That is all. The goal is to say thank you for awesome stuff that the community does.
That is a really cool endeavor, but the goal here is not sustainability. The goal is to run an experiment to recognize, reward, and incentivize community participation. This experiment is only intended to initially run from this AGP to the next. At that point it can be reevaluated to see if it makes sense to continue.
To add to this: the primary purpose of this AGP is 100% to incentivise and reward community participation within the Aragon Network. Allocations and community nominations are awesome, and after test driving those apps in several DAOs we want to bring them to the broader Aragon community on this forum. Anyone can nominate anyone, however we will start by having members of the CRDAO do the actual dot voting. CRDAO members can create proposals to add new members, so we expect this membership pool to grow. Eventually we would like to grow the membership pool to include all Aragon forum community members by using SourceCred to distribute voting weight and allow anyone to vote.
As mentioned above the process is quite similar to our nominations and allocation process in the 1hive DAO and that has worked quite well. Very interested to see how it works in a slightly larger scale community.
The amount also feels like the right balance between meaningful rewards for community contributors and a low risk initial experiment.
hello!! there’s something worring me about this AGP, this relies completely on having the dot voting up and running, but AFAIK it’s so broken that it doesn’t even allow a CRDAO e2e community test on rinkeby!
The CRDAO dose rely heavily on dot voting. Further more it will be very clunky to use a mainnet and rinkeby DAO simultaneously. So we will wait until dot voting is on mainnet if the AGP passes. In the meantime the funds will remain safe in the mainnet DAO untill we can start running it.
It’s worth noting the rewards process is not new. We have been running it internally at 1hive for months very successfully. e2e tests are primarily to so the wider community can grok the process and ensure the Dao is setup correctly as it will be slightly different to the 1hive model. Also Autark have a comprehensive community testing program we will be participating in
If you have concerns you can always message me directly as you have on many occasions. In any case, screen shooting conversations (even public ones) seems a bit weird. I’m not sure why it was necessary, especially since you had been given an answer to your questions by Yalda much more recently than my message
as mentioned, I was concerned about an AGP that relied on a tech functionality that seems not to be ready for mainnet. ANV4 is coming, and I just want to facilitate transparency of information for people that want to build up their own criteria.
Yalda’s answer was a consequence of me doing that, which I appreciated as it was clarifying. So it did worth the effort.
Now that I presume the emotional tension is solved, if any (everybody seems to be very sensitive these days… could be the ANV? the autumn? the astral?), here my overall comment about the topic about reading your reply.
It is of course very nice to know that 1hive and Autark communities are testing this already, but as far as I know, this would be the first UC where this app is deployed into mainnet, so I would suppose we need to propose testing it to the whole Aragon community, as I understand it will be considered within Yalda’s announcement.
eeeehhhhh what do you mean here??? this AGP clearly states: “Community members will be asked to inspect and audit the DAO before funds are transferred to ensure permissions are set correctly according to the CRDAO-Outline.” and I’m kind of worried about such a contradiction… What am I missing?
I would expect that if the AGP passes, the DAO would be created having you as burrrata as founding members, but I would also expect:
No funds will be received there till there is a Community test process and the Community doesn’t find any bug and give their ok (BTW, is there a Test Plan with UC and defined success criteria??)
Till this tests are done and passed, the CRDAO membership body shall be enforced with new members (as proposed in the CRDAO users’ guide), not that I don’t trust you, but it is easy to pact a “I nominate you, you nominate me” agreement having only two members there. Again, just want to create transparency about potential (internal) attack vectors here even if I don’t think this is likely to happen as you are putting your reputation as stake in the process.
100% for Facilitating transparency, keeping things in the public domain where possible is always a plus in my book.
But to me, it seems natural if you have specific concerns, you would raise them personally especially when you know the people involved. You get immediate feedback (like that which yalda gave which you then ignored).
No emotional tension here I’m sorry if you perceived my message as hostile, I just find screenshotting conversations weird ¯_(ツ)_/¯ anyway
My bad I miss spoke. I wrote the initial draft, @burrrata tidied it up.
In the original draft, funds would have been held in A mainnet DAO controlled by myself and burrrata until ready to be deployed. The process outlined in the pull request is what is currently being proposed.
No one wants another failed community experiment like the coop. Hopefully, I can clarify and address your concerns
Funds will go directly to the DAO’s vault. Burrrata and Aaron will be responsible for creating the DAO. Community members will be asked to inspect and audit the DAO before funds are transferred to ensure permissions are set correctly according to the CRDAO-Outline.
Funds will not be transferred to the vault until dot voting is on mainnet and installed in the DAO. If the AGP passes, this will happen whenever Dot voting is available. Of course, we would like the app on mainnet before ANV4, but if there is a delay then the CRDAO launch will also be delayed. Personally, I don’t think this is a major issue
Dot voting will not be deployed to main net until it has passed a security audit, the scope of the tests relate to the permissions of the DAO.
Success criteria is the Autark team (and other community members with knowledge of the permissions system) being happy with the permissions setup
If the AGP passes, we will request community members apply for membership of the DAO in a forum thread similar to the Nest DAO thread working group.
As you said, both burrrata and I are well-established members of this community (and Nest DAO members) with significant reputation, Being members of the CRDAO means there is always the potential for us to abuse this position, but any abuse would be very public. It is for the community to decide if they trust us with this responsibility
I wasn’t questioning that, my question was about your commitment in making the Membership body stronger. More clearly, I’d like to be a member, the on-boarding process seems to be linked to your and @burrrata subjectivity and I’d like to know your position about it .
CRDAO will be a community organization. It’s membership will be open to all aragon community members. The criteria being active, engaged and constructive.
It’s worth pointing out V1 will require CRDAO token holders to carry out the dot votes, but there is a clear path towards decentralisation with the end goal of making CRDAO token holders redundant. But decentralising control has to be a careful and managed process. Our priority has to be avoiding another co-op situation.
If the AGP passes, all active community members will be invited to join the DAO by formally requesting membership in a forum thread we hope to get a good cross-section of members from the ecosystem who will work well together
one of the co-op situation (among others… a document will be shared someday) causes was precisely a naive member on-boarding process, so I wouldn’t agree more with what you said.
I can understand that the process is not defined and you will be deciding “on the go”… but I would like to know at least a more defined criteria rather than something as subjective as “we two will be defining it”.
I guess then that it will be defined if AGP get approved while during the test, and I would also expect you guys will commit to extend the membership body before receiving the funds in the DAO. Can you confirm this?
I absolutely trust @burrrata and @Aaron to transition the governance of the CRDAO to the mechanism explained in the AGP as soon as they consider it safe to do so. I wouldn’t feel pressured to involve anyone else in decisions until that point (although transparency and updates are always appreciated), as you said you are community members with significant reputation at stake and that’s totally enough for me.
So as I mentioned earlier, the DAO will be open to all active community members. We want the DAO to operate at scale. The point is to be as inclusive as possible by giving anyone the possibility to participate in a real DAO
This DAO is designed to reward and encourage participation in the Aragon community so being engaged within the wider Aragon community is a necessary prerequisite. being active within CRDAO is also a necessary prerequisite as members not engaging will affect quorum and make operating difficult. Other than that we want to keep it as light weight as possible. If participating starts consuming hours of peoples time then people will disengage
The intention is to onboard the first cohort of members before the first Dot Vote, Having only two people voting would not be a good test of the process IMO. That being said, the first cohort will be picked by myself and @burrrata according to our subjective opinion of who is active, engaged and constructive. After that, the DAO will be not be in our control, the collective membership will then make that judgement