As I explained here, considering the fact that AA is responsible for preparing the structure and setting the conditions to decentralize the treasury, it will guarantee the Demo Delegate DAO project continuity and will be entity evaluating deliverables and disbursing payments directly.
The timing and high level of required coordination across different parties (proposal creators, tech leads, auditors, etc) require a very close collaboration, so we maximize the chances of delivering the desired end state in time and with the highest level of guarantees.
I would therefore suggest that the final proposal for vote does not include this one in the scope of ESD-funded initiatives. There should also be an option in the vote for these other projects to be funded by the main DAO moving forward, as a third option other than yes or no, as this is also possible.
I don’t know if I am allowed to weigh in as I have just recently joined the ANT community, but this looks like the ESD members are looking for a reason to exist and spamming ANT holders. Two proposals where the ESD was asking for money (by @lee0007 and by @fartunov) have already been rejected through a vote. The Main DAO, or apparently AA, can take care of teams being paid for their work.
You’re welcome to weigh in. This is a DAO, diversity of perspective is always needed and welcome. As a new community member are you aware that the Executive Sub DAO continue to exist and be paid whether funded or not because they are established via the Aragon Network Charter that currently governs our interaction on this network?
Main DAO financial proposals are an open and standard AN DAO governance process. And thanks to the feedback process I have edited the proposal to further clarify, that this is NOT a request for ESD funding.
This is a proposal for ANT holders to decide whether to honour legitimate funding decisions by the ESD (or not) to fund ecosystem collaborators via Main DAO. This process is how legitimate, decentralised, and transparent funding happens here at AN DAO.
As an ANT holder, DAO contributor and ESD member I consider this professional diligence, I’m not just walking away and leaving other people (or organisations that are not the DAO) to tie up loose ends here.
Have you considered this proposal from the perspective of the funded team seeking transparency on the future of their funding? Suggest you check out our Community Guidelines which ask we assume good intentions, a behaviour that contributes to a positive environment for our community
As per @Joan_Arus advice due to the highest priority of the delegate enable DAO the AA has guaranteed payment of Demo Delegate DAO ~31k and any further funding required for this work as stated here
And as per Joan’s request, this line item is removed from this proposal. I will also highlight that @sembrestels as a lead developer on the delegate DAO is also the lead on the EVMCrispr proposal that remains listed in this proposal.
@Ricktik6 can you please confirm the funding that remains owing to EVM Crispr please so I can provide an exact figure for this proposal. Thank you
I fully support the intended objective of the vote (Blossom and Gravity getting paid for the work they deliver) as the ESD has committed on behalf of the AN DAO.
Several community members reached out with concerns about the phrasing of the vote. Although I did not initially voice this, as the realization is not mine, I agree the phrasing can easily be interpreted as impartial. Using specialised/complex language where simple one will suffice, creates opportunities for swaying/manipulating votes through specific word choices. I would like to thank the community members who spoke up for keeping us in check.
Since one of the names on the proposal is mine, I would vote against the current one. In case as a result of this statement the proposal does not pass, I will either resubmit myself or work with the other ESD members on a resubmission with more accessible phrasing.
As a backstop mechanism the AA will hopefully step up to not tarnish the Aragon brand if AN DAO defaults on the commitment.
DYOR The concept to “honour payment” is both a legal terms and a standard financial phrase.
Maybe if people addressed these concerns when the proposal was open for 10 days for discussion it could have been adapted. Voting this down due to failure to grasp or seek clarification on the meaning of a word is ANT holders call
Given your stance about non-tolerance @fartunov you should check your own no so subtle manipulation of legal terminology to proclaim the concept of honouring payments as “if you disagree with me, you are a bad person”
Just a quick note to add some information. This doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with legal definitions.
In Spanish, it’s a common term used to remunerate people who provide services, especially for agents of liberal occupations (architects, lawyers, developers) or a team under a contract of work and services.
Therefore, it’s reasonable to refer to someone’s honorarium in Spanish, and probably in English.
I’m quite frankly astounded that people struggle with what is in my values-based world, a commonly understood term. Here’s a few more examples that express the intent and positive connotations of the word honour in this context
Seriously disappointed that you choose the path of making ad hominem accusations of bias and impartiality about me instead of asking for clarification before promoting and downvoting this proposal. imo semantic disputes are trivial in comparison to how your choice does reflect w. ecosystem partners who have worked for months already to the benefit of Aragon, the network and the AN DAO.