Thanks for the amount of detail put into the proposal, it looks really promising and I would love to see the outcome of it.
Any tool that helps the currently convoluted UX related to DAO management tooling is a step in the right direction IMO. Lowering the bar for developers to interact with DAOs seems like a really good step towards improving that.
Would also love to see this functionality added to the new Aragon App, once that is possible.
It would be much easier for myself and other community members to fully support this proposal if there was at least some assurance of this compatibility. Appreciate that even if it’s not, this proposal is still valuable to the tech support guild and would help reduce some of their work load as well as other AC DAOs. But that said, it would also be a shame to not develop a refactored version in a manner that might be at odds with Aragon App.
Most of the developments we are proposing are agnostic to any underlying DAO architecture. Variables, helpers, and simulations could all be used if Zaragoza is supported in the future.
As we said earlier we think Zaragoza could benefit from EVMcrispr in the future at least in the areas of changing permissions and sending actions to execute on votes, although building this compatibility is not in the scope of this proposal because Zaragoza codebase is still changing, and we are not familiar with it.
On the other hand, something else that could help on the adoption of Zaragoza is that EVMcrispr can assist on the migration of the assets of old AragonOS DAOs, as we already have done with 1Hive on mainnet (migrating the different tokens and NFTs of the DAO to another address).
That being said, our predisposition is to keep track of the developments of Zaragoza and earn experience with it. It is just early for us an for EVMcripsr to commit on integrating it, we will be in a much better position in six months to talk about it properly.
We are very glad to see all the support this proposal is having and the value EVMcrispr is providing to the value. We are ready to start working on the next version that will introduce variables and helpers for the first time. We are eager to hear from the ESD if our proposal is accepted, or there is something else we can clarify before starting to work. We are at your disposition.
To clarify: This proposal has my full support, which is not contingent on any commitments concerning Zaragoza - it is, as you have put it, an avenue for future potential exploration which lies beyond the scope of the current proposal.
I’ve been supporting this proposal for a while and I’m happy to finally see it come to light. It has my full support as it could both facilitate migration to Zaragoza should the new stack prove successful, and should the new stack prove unsuccessful, the proposal delivers significant value expanding the functionality of the most popular Aragon product to date.
I’ve just noticed that the proposal doesn’t include yet a budget for a reviewer (not an auditor but at least an agent able to judge whether the code does what it says on the tin).
The executive sub-DAO doesn’t have the capacity to review such a proposal, so it would be advisable to include a budget for a reviewer to be suggested by anyone and approved by the ESD but under the responsibility of the proposers to source.
ESD General Meeting Monday 4 April UTC 1900: This proposal has unanimous support from the ESD on the basis of
including budget for independent review as per @daniel-ospinarequest above as we are not in the position to assess the deliverables ourselves. The tech commitee @nivida@p4u@voronchuk &/or dtech @brent@alibama may be able to provide this review but you are welcome to work with whom ever you wish to include in the proposal
approval of ESD Discretionary funding for Season 1 1 April - 31 July
approval of ESD Discretionary funding Season 2 for remaining months (2)
This is great @lee0007, should we slightly modify the proposal to include cost of the independent review? When should the review be done, should it be before the project starts, after the first deliverable, or something different?
We can start working, so we don’t miss the deadline of having the version 0.4.x with environment variables and function helpers by the end of the month. This gives more time for the independent review. The approval of ESD Discretionary funding vote should be ended in very few hours, so we will now soon.
The charter requires we the ESD must assess deliverables before releasing funds, but due to the technical nature here, we are not in a position to do so. We would need the review posted here in the forum in advance of every payment, currently monthly - unless you change payment cadence.
Approve technical proposals they believe would be beneficial to the Aragon project
and DO NOT require a 3rd party technical security audit due to being low risk.
This proposal falls under this category and tech committee approval is required. To date only @voronchuk has expressed the product is useful.
Can the Tech Committee please provide an official statement to clarify your position that this project is/is not " beneficial to the Aragon Project" as it is currently framed to serve existing DAO on the Aragon Network and is not contingent on any commitments concerning Zaragoza.
Your approval is also required ongoing for the release of v0.4.x - v0.9.x
Can the Tech Committee coordinate with this team so that they can update the proposal or state in the forum here please for transparency cost for monthly review if you believe payment is required over and above the current monthly reward for tech committee members? Thank you
I talked with Gaus, the founder of NFTX DAO, and he has offered himself to review every deliverable. If you think it is a good fit, I will proceed to modify the proposal so NFTX will receive a payment for their services (1,000 USDC per month).
To add more context to why I propose NFTX for an independent review:
They are a highly notorious Aragon DAO, independent of 1Hive and our team, and very interested in making sure we do the work we are paid for.
For sure, the review of the Tech Committee will still be necessary to unlock the funds each month. We hope our report after releasing each deliverable and the independent review from NFTX will help to clarify how well are we doing, so they have all the information at hand.
@nvida can we please get the tech committee sign off as we currently have only minrority suppprt from tech committee, and despite unanimous support from ESD for funding it is the tech committee that ultimately must approve technical proposals
I can second @vorunchuk’s view on things. I was also already in contact with Sem about and forwarded him weiroll (an already working “VM inside the VM”). In Aragon App/V2/Zaragoza we have at the core of the architecture an Agent like executor that is capable of sequentially executing different actions. This means this proposal wouldn’t actually improve the new tech stack (if the UI part is done) of Aragon App but of course the “legacy” AragonOS.
However, if the product team decides to support AragonOS in the mid and long term until full feature parity is achieved (shouldn’t take 1y+) can we discuss using weiroll as the base and build a user-friendly “contract actions composer” as envisioned already by the tech and product team of AA. This would speed up the UX improvement for AragonOS this proposal has as the core goal and could be aligned with the overall Aragon Network roadmap. This is because if implemented well can it be used in V2 as well.
My conclusion: If we can achieve a win-win situation here would it be perfect. Also, I can envision a long-term collaborative relationship with the peeps of 1Hive (there are also ideas around as for example an AragonOS <> Aragon App bridge to leverage all the existing apps).
@sembrestels Let us chat about on the 20th of April here in Amsterdam.
@lee0007@daniel-ospina, to be perfectly honest, I got a bit lost now. We have two members of the Technical Committee “endorsing” the proposal. It remains unclear to me do we fund it in its current form, or should it be adjusted to include an independent review?
We were on what seemed a great path and got somewhat sidetracked by the Charter.
Let’s figure it out on the call tonight and move forward
This looks good indeed, @fartunov, I think we almost have the support from everyone.
I modified the proposal to include a payment of 6,000 USDC to NFTX for the independent review and rolled out all the deliverables one month, so we start on May 1st, so you can discuss it again tonight @lee0007.
About @nivida’s proposal of including support to weiroll, for sure is an interesting technology we will follow up, and make EVMcrispr more modular so it can support multiple action encoders in the future. We can not use it as the base of EVMcrispr because we are unfamiliar with it, but we can make sure that when we rewrite significant parts of EVMcrispr in 0.5.x and 0.7.x we will make an extra effort to make it easy to include weiroll or other DAO frameworks as modules to the library. As I was saying in a previous post, we are predisposed to keep track of the developments of Zaragoza or any other technology Aragon proposes and earn experience with it, although it is still early for us to commit to an integration.
These are excellent news; thanks for your confidence. We are thrilled for the opportunity to continue with the development of EVMcrispr, and we hope it will provide the tools to create more complex DAOs and do more complex interactions with the already established ones.