Voting is live: Aragon Voice
Will come back to you shortly @lee0007 @Shawncubbedge
Correction reporting was always included from the beginning of the proposal “We will also continue to report monthly using the ESD template report.” Another paragraph on reporting was added as well. We have also built the tracker that we will be using throughout the season’s for live reporting on progress. This will be the source of truth alongside dework for individual task tracking for the coming seasons: Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.
Fundamentally the scope of Ops is very large and agree that any of these proposals could be standalone and request a similar amount of funds to other teams, I would anticipate the cost would increase if this was to occur and provide poor value to the DAO along with increased coordination burden. This is why the KPIs were linked in separate notion pages as each of these could be stand alone proposals in there own rights.
I would like the measurement of success to move towards an OKR system where we aspire to reach high-level goals, rather than set granular tasks which are set to the lowest level where funding is attached.
As a group, we should be aspiring for more and to be trying to reach high-end goals thus the high level goals are highlighted hopefully the table makes that clearer.
Agree
I’ve shared this elsewhere when requesting deliverables KPI Sub-DAO Structure — Peter 'pet3rpan'
Regardsless of the level of the goal, people still need to be able to express how/what they intend to deliver to achieve those goals in order to be accountable and my repeated request for deliverables within the proposal (vs outside documents subject to change) is about accountability.
Deliverables are more directly relevant to effective and efficient planning and process, than funding and I may have incorrectly believed Eagle Ops would continue to build upon season 1 proposal to “… maintain operational efficiency across the DAO…” and
Had Ops collaborated in the dGov S2 Proposal Workshop lead by @Shawncubbedge we could have addressed concerns back in July, prior to forum because I am well aware that this 90’s communication method fails to convey that I am in fact a stronger supporter of the proposed team. I have no doubt they do and will continue to deliver. I simply do not believe that this proposal does them justice. More than that, I think the proposal has jeapodised the team’s ability to secure funding and I hope to be proven wrong on this point.
@AClay @Fabs @lion917 @anukriti10 @Joan_Arus @Ricktik6
I have just seen that the DAO Ops proposal includes the option to abstain. I have actively sort compliance advice on this matters several times in the past and a vote to abstain counts for neither quorum nor outcome, it is a wasted vote and no advice was provided to advise this fact in your proposal
The Charter is intended for yes no votes only. A position communicated repeatedly in multiple places on the forum by @Compliance Committee Members of which @AClay would be aware
@eaglelex here reasonable means, abstain and majority votes
@eaglelex here majority, dual choice vote (yes/no), abstain
@ronald_k here majority, dual choice vote (yes/no)
This proposal meets none of the standards established and required of every other team to date including dTech, Community Guild and Executive Sub DAO Members. You are establishing a very clear double stand between what the AA can propose vs what is required of the DAO.
Lack of compliance is not my call to make but I am requesting a veto of this proposal by the @eaglelex @Tayy @ronald_k and if veto’d I hope you will take the opportunity to address the clear double standard and present a proposal to the equal standard required of everyone else, one to which people can be held accountable for the 420k funding requested.
Sorry but I’m not the only person that sees the double-standard I’m just in the shit position of voicing widely held concerns on behalf of DAO contributors.
Welcome to Month 1 of Ops report, this report will evolve going forwards. We will also share some finance dashboards and other more detailed information going forwards.
Deliverables
Recurring:
100% timeliness to compile AN DAO payments: prepare, sign and execute routine financial transactions within 10 days after voting is done - Completed (recurring)
100% timeliness to compile core contributor payments: prepare, sign and execute routine financial transactions by the 15th of the month - Completed (recurring)
100% timeliness to compile creator payments (bounties): prepare, sign and execute on a weekly basis - Completed (recurring)
Concrete:
31st of August, building an expected treasury stream overview for ESD & AN DAO (and maintain it for the rest of the season) - Completed
30th of Nov, having a concrete wBTC plan (to execute) - Completed
30th of December, Make a yearly budgeting plan - In progress
Additional Deliverables
Help delivering the Wildfire proposal - Completed
Help delivering the stable coin diversity strategy - In progress
Set-up Opolis partnership & get the first contributor onboarded - In progress
Set-up a new treasury architecture for S2 - In progress
Deliverables
Deliverables
Additional Deliverables
Deliverables
Outgoings | $30,907 |
---|---|
Remaining from Budget form Month | $20,403 |
Contributor Payments | $29,500 |
Bounties | $1,000 |
Expenses | $407 |
Thanks for all the initial work of the different teams we will evolve this report moving forwards.
This was a dGov role, paid for in July from S1 dGov approved funding (additional to Eagle ops funding) as part of the stated deliverables to baseline and measure increased governance participation S1.
For transparency and accountability can this dGov deliverable be removed from Ops reporting please and the 10% progress edited to more accurately reflect progress specific to Ops deliverables
Please see Governance Analyst DeWork for Baselines (June/July) and Performance Comparison (August). The final report was paid in July as per finance team advice because this dGov core support bounty was completed before 15 August.
I am sorry, my fault. I got confused with the many dates and reports we have issued.
Updated
Deliverables
Recurring:
Concrete:
Additional Deliverables
Deliverables
Concerns/Blockers:
Deliverables
Additional Deliverables
Outgoings | $30,775 |
---|---|
USDC 90% total | $28,000 |
ANT 10% total | $2,775 |
Core contributor rewards | $28,000 |
Bounties | $2,775 |
Expenses | $0 |
Remaining S2 budget | $40,138 |
Deliverables
Recurring:
100% timeliness to compile AN DAO payments: prepare, sign and execute routine financial transactions within 10 days after voting is done - Completed (recurring)
100% timeliness to compile core contributor payments: prepare, sign and execute routine financial transactions by the 15th of the month - Completed (recurring)
100% timeliness to compile creator payments (bounties): prepare, sign and execute on a weekly basis - Completed (recurring)
100% timeliness of monthly income/expense report & contributor rewards report posted on the forum before the 5th of next month - Completed (recurring)
Concrete:
Additional Deliverables
Deliverables
Recurring:
Additional Deliverables
Additional Deliverables
Deliverables
Amended Necessary Contributor Agreements for Forward Compatibility with DAO Transition - Completed (Recurring)
Assisted in reviewing and Negotiating multiple Agreements with Aragon Vendors - Completed (Recurring)
Aragon Trademarks and Intellectual Asset Review and Strategy - In Progress (70%)
Data Management and Privacy Standards Implementation - In Progress (70%)
Legal Wrapper Research/Support and DAO Structuring - In Progress (40%)
Risk Analysis of Publicly Available Documentation of Aragon - In Progress (20%)
Review of Policy Drafts prepared by Finance Squad - In Progress (10%)
Additional Deliverables
Outgoings | $29,752 |
---|---|
USDC 90% total | $26,777 |
ANT 10% total | $2,975 |
Core contributor rewards | $28,000 |
Bounties | $1,700 |
Expenses | $52 |
Remaining S2 budget | $56,826 |
Eagle Ops can reflect back on a successful first season as a guild, since almost all previous set deliverables were delivered and a significant amount of 17 additional deliverables were produced by the different squads. Therefore, Eagle Ops is happy to continue with all squads and their newly formed KPIs for S3 (shared early December).
The guild will assess the budget and share an update for S3 in the coming weeks.
Eagle Ops is looking forward to proceeding with the collaboration with Community Guild & dTech.
The governance SubDAOs were not reelected and ceased 21 October 2022. Sobol needs correcting
100% complete, up from 40% at the beginning of the month? yet there’s still more work to be done? You’re referencing two “concrete deliverables” that were not shared in the original proposal and there’s no obvious or transparent point of reference on what was planned or delivered. To clarify deliverable 2 100% Completed, Done could you guys provide a link, please.
Thx for pointing out, updated!
Cool.Nice work on pulling together that industry data. Was there any further analysis of those growth trends, especially re:syndicate. Be interesting to understand the size of DAO membership (mean/median/mode) across the different creator tools.
Thank you. It was not simple, but I feel we have created something that has never existed before and provided amazing insight to how to achieve the objective of more active DAOs.
Expect the articles outlined above to focus on the topics you mentioned and more
Agree with Renee that some more insight would be great! Getting Henry to dive deeper into Syndicate would be worth it. Copying @mroldann since we spoke last week that Syndicate specifically is tricky to gain insight into as the contracts are not open source. A few specific comments:
Thanks @fartunov!
I love it that more and more people are excited about the insights we are creating. This is just the start
We have indeed been working closely with @mroldann and he has been really really helpful!
I wanted to add some comments to the points you made below:
It seems to me that the fact that Syndicate advertised a legal wrapper to their “investment clubs” was the cause of the the biggest spikes (and lots of publicity). Their definition of what an “investment club” is or is not, their definition of custodial vs. non-custodial and how they deal with an entity’s funds are all peculiar. We are looking to write an article and shed some light into all of this next season. If you would like to help we would love your contribution!
The dashboard linked in v1… more like a beta version as we just managed to get everything hooked up (including the use of just released features) to make it work. We are working on a new version for season 3 which will delve deeper exactly at the points you mentioned, and maybe more too.
2.1) For example, our current definition of activity was a compromise to get us a number. Today it is an activity (inflow or outflow) of the registered wallet of the organism within the timeframe (1 week or a quarter). We are looking to dive deeper into this metric to better understand DAO creation and activity.
2.2) We have just today been able to get a better list of token values so that we can get closer to TVL – it has not been easy and i do not want to over promise, but we are working towards this number too.
2.3) we have just today flagged the cumulative active metric as incorrect and we are going to update the dashboard in the coming days to reflect a more meaningful and useful number.
Having said all that. If you would like to offer more support and ideas, share what else you would like to see, lets get in touch
Best regards
Fabs
Thanks for sharing this dashboard Fabs! This is brilliant. I understand how difficult this must have been so kudos to Henry as well and Martin! @fartunov brings up brilliant points about the Syndicate statistics, there’s obviously something off there not because of a mistake but simply because of the parameters. I won’t pretend I know how to fix that! But this still overall is really helpful to look at. Thanks!
Hi all! Thanks @fartunov for pinging.
As @Fabs mentions, we need a general disclaimer regarding data accuracy as it is still work in progress. Mind that this kind of dashboards have only been possible since early November 2022 with Dune V2 faster and multi chain queries (thanks to SQL Spark vs. Postgre in V1), Dune V2 adding Polygon data and, specially, Dune spells (user defined data abstractions) that Henry created to make queries even faster.
Regarding Syndicate, clubs creation data seems to be correct as the dashboard shows they had 20k clubs at the same time they announced this milestone on Twitter.
As for the outlier, it seems they have been attacked by airdrop farmers when they launched in Polygon as @fartunov mentions.
As a side comment, Syndicate Clubs seem to be quite different to other forms of organization. For example, Club tokens are non-transferrable ERC-20s, members cannot be more than 99 and if the Club is created by an EOA the funds of the fundrising goes to it. Finally, their contracts are’t verified to getting sense of what happens within them is harder.
As a conclusion, this is a good start but we need more time to continue curating the data, discuss whether to include Syndicate and/or other DAO frameworks and add data related to TVLs and membership.