Dear Aragon Network! It is my great honour to present here the result of my research and development during past several years in DAOs, Digital State and impact-oriented economy. In times of the FTX crisis the DAO technology becomes ultimate tool to secure such issues by enabling transparent and reliable form of governance. Only thing that is missing is proper methodology to use this amazing tool.
So here is Mastering DAO: Governance-as-a-Service is a methodological program which, when applied to any organization, provides a full-scope universal governance template that simplifies interaction between members of the organization, structures informational flow and formulates bonding agreements. This proposal is an example of the program deliverable, so in the end you can expect to have such detailed and indexed document for a specific state of governance.
I am offering to perform the program for a limited field of Aragon Network governance - guilds funding. Let’s create a template that can be used by existing teams and many newcomers 
Proposal TL;DR
- What: Governance-as-a-Service program to configure DAOs that deliver
- Why: Increase DAO’s credibility and value creation
- How: Fix major issues like opportunistic abuse, chaos and informational complexity with the universal governance template consisting of Participatory Governance Framework, Role-Procedure Organisation table and Outcome-based Bonding Agreement
- Terms: €76k for 30+ participants during 10 weeks of program
- By Whom: Leading partner Mike Ananyin
- For Whom: Delegates and token holders of the client organization
Full proposal
Vision
DAO is a powerful tool that is already used for inter-cultural and inter-network collaboration of people and robots, regulated by smart contracts in a way that respects humans with related rights and freedoms as the main stakeholders.
But currently most of the DAOs are experiencing organizational troubles and are investing in research and experiments to overcome these troubles in order to find the best dGov tools/methods.
Problematics
Being a part of teams working in DAOs, I have observed, studied and collected a number of general issues that block DAO’s goals achievement and development. They are in short:
- Information complexity - Most of the DAOs are using numerous information frameworks like forums, discord servers, telegram groups etc. This leads to enormous flow of information and makes it impossible for most of the users to stay focused and participate in governance.
- Chaotic organization - In most DAOs, participants and contributors are confusing roles and responsibilities, which leads to failed expectations and inefficient use of financial and human resources.
- Opportunistic abuse - Most DAOs are distributing tasks on the bounty base that does not provide any job security and does not attract experienced experts for a long term commitment. This leads to low quality of the task force and to unstable outcomes.
Key Objective Results
These problems can be solved by members of an organization in an open and transparent format using proper methodologies and sociocratic principals. To narrow the process down, we can re-formulate problems into Objectives and Key Results (OKRs) of the program:
- Objective 1: to decrease complexity by setting up a Participatory Governance Framework (PGF) consisting of consecutive sessions focusing on structuring information into 4 vectors: propose the future, execute now, comply with the past and report on-time.
- Result 1: 4-vector PGF processes set up and running
- Result 2: 24 participants provided constructive feedback
- Objective 2: to simplify the onboarding and coordination processes by building the Role-Procedure Organisation (RPO) table consisting of roles, permissions, procedures and stimulation tactics.
- Result 3: 24 participants signed up for roles
- Result 4: 72 rewards distributed
- Objective 3: to secure employment and results delivery by writing an Outcome-Based Bonding Agreement (OBBA) consisting of OKRs, KPIs, regulation guidelines in addition to the RPO table.
- Result 5: 24 participants signed OBBA
- Result 6: DAO signed OBBA with 0.5% support
Previously the attempt to reach Objective 1 was made under the dGov initiative with approximate funding of 72k per 4 months. The latest funding proposal from Community guild partially covering Objective 2 had 302k per 8 months. The market valuation of the program can be found considering these numbers:
18k per month * 2 months (Obj1) + 37k per month * 2 months (Obj2) = 110k.
The current program price is 76k that is 30% below the market valuation, meaning that the program can include additional working packages or increase reward funds.
Role-Permission Organization Table
The program and proposal are designed by the Leading Partner Mike Ananyin where Intellectual Property rights are owned by Inteligente Razao - Unipessoal LDA company registered in Portugal, EU.
The proposal is targeting voting stakeholders of the client organization, represented by token holders or/and delegates.
| Roles | Permissions | Procedures | Incentives |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leading Partners | to propose the program to a client organization | to publish a proposal in the forum according to the procedure of the client organization | Leadership reward at the rate of 12% of the cost structure (€6 796,80) paid upon successful program proposition to the client organization. In case of the violation of Values and Internal Policies, the Leading Partner is losing 50% of the reward in favor of the challenger and compliance officer. |
| to modify the proposal content | to publish a proposal draft in the internal communication channels and wait for the consent of other Partners to approve the proposition/modification by signing up to the program | ||
| to control program funding | Control over the funds is performed via Gnosis Safe contract and released based on remuneration form submissions | ||
| Token holders/ delegates | to comment on the proposal publication | to find forum post with the proposal body to read and comment | Successful implementation of the program will boost awareness and can positively affect the token price. |
| to vote for the program funding | To follow voting link included into proposal post |
Execution plan TL;DR
- What: Workshops, analytics and reporting that make vision possible
- Why: Solutions lie in the hands of the community that needs professional guidance to extract them
- How: series of workshops and applied methodologies, such as OST, co-creation, ToC, S.M.A.R.T., design thinking and OKR\KPI setup.
- Terms: 3 working packages covering preparation, facilitation and communication.
- By Whom: Partners composed of experienced facilitators
- For Whom: community members and Scholars of the program: delegates, team/guild leaders, compliance officers\judges, community managers/reporters
Full Execution Plan
Mission
In the past 10 years of working in science and consulting R&D businesses I have been implying a human-centric and self-sovereign approach to aggregate natural and artificial intelligence capital. That allowed me to provide my clients with state-of-the-art services.
So the outlined objectives of the program can be successfully achieved by the participants with the help of methodological guidance, analytics and reporting provided by the assembled team of facilitators and performed via online tools. This is accomplished through a series of workshops and applied methodologies, such as OST, co-creation, ToC, S.M.A.R.T., design thinking and OKR\KPI setup.
Working Packages
According to the mission and outlined OKRs we can define Working Packages (WPs) - sequences of activities that lead to a desired outcome. Every Working Package contains not only description of activities, but also preliminary analysis of cost structure based on involved resources.
- WP1: Project management - €22 020,00
- Sourcing stakeholders problem - Preliminary research on the actual problems related to tokenholders, scouting participants and building topic presentation
- Scholarship program for participation - sign-up 24 members for scholarship program to ensure participation into vector groups, rewarded €150 per each session per scholar.
- Registration and notification - distribute and analyze the registration form for participation including time zones, language, skill set, position/role in organization etc., notify participants about the agenda, changes and important updates.
- WP2: Facilitation - €30 600,00
- Onboarding - covers scheduling, digital channel creation, introductory materials, setting up tooling.
- Workshops sessions - preparation of the materials, online facilitation, submission of notes and recordings.
- Customer support - technical and methodological support during and between sessions.
- WP3: Communication - 4 020,00 €
- Content creation - 12 reports creation, visual design, infographics
- Growth Hacking - analyze communication and increase engagement after every PGF round
- Tooling setup - Hubspot, Zoom, Miro, Dework, Aragon Voice
The total operational costs of the program are €56 640,00 paid gradually upon every report delivered. For more details check the cost structure table.
Key Performance Indicators
In order to ensure continuous rewarding and achievement of the OKRs and provide assessment structure of the program execution, we need to link WPs with OKRs via set of related Key Performance Indicators (KPIs):
- WP1: Project management:
- KPIs 1: forum activity (posts, replies, likes) - OKR 6
- KPIs 2: number of scholars (signed, active, finished) - OKR 2-5
- KPIs 3: registration & notification forms (distributed, returned, valid) - OKR 2,4,5
- WP2: Facilitation:
- KPIs 4: onboarded participants (invited, replied, participated) - OKR 1-3,5
- KPIs 5: workshops performed (scheduled, performed, reported) - OKR 1,4
- KPIs 6: number of support tickets (created, responded, resolved) - OKR 1-5
- WP3: Communication:
- KPIs 7: report articles (posted, replied, likes) - OKR 1,3,5,6
- KPIs 8: number of participants (registered, participated, signed) - OKR 1-3,5,6
- KPIs 9: tools (linked, customized, used) - OKR1,2,4,6
Role-Permission Organization Table
The program execution is targeting community members and Scholars - selected participants of the program divided in PGF vector groups accordingly: delegators/token-holders, team/guild leaders, compliance officers\judges, community managers/reporters.
The program execution is performed by the program Partners, composed of experienced facilitators.
In order to incentivise Partners, Scholars and community members in addition to WP remuneration and Scholarship there is a designated Execution reward at the rate of 22% of the costs structure (€12 460,80) distributed for committing “extra mile” during the program and between the sessions. The Execution Reward is distributed to participants upon the program completion based on the overall reports evaluation. In case of the violation of Values and Internal Policies participants are losing the reward and/or the remuneration.
| Roles | Permissions | Procedures | Incentives |
|---|---|---|---|
| Partners | to sign-up them-selfs or external participants for the WPs activities | to fill the sign-up form and ask for consent from other Partners, where abstaining is equal to consent | WP activity payment |
| to receive WP payments | to fill the remuneration form and wait for compliance | ||
| to evaluate reports | to confirm report reading with an overall rating from 1 to 5 consisting of ratings: KPI performance, content quality and engagement rate | 12% of the Execution reward | |
| Scholars | to join sessions | Sign-up for the session and join the call | Scholarship payment |
| to receive scholarship payments | To fill the remuneration form and wait for compliance | ||
| To sign reports | To fill the sign-up form | 44% of the Execution reward | |
| Community members | to join sessions | Sign-up for the session and join the call | 44% of the Execution reward |
| To sign reports | To fill the sign-up form | ||
| To join Scholarship | To fill the sign-up form and wait for the approval | Scholarship payment |
Partners:
- Mike Ananyin (Belarus – Portugal): DAO Master.
- Expertise: Digital Economy and Governance, tokenization/decentralization, digital state, AI
- Experience:
- Founder and CEO at Inteligente Razao LDA - blockchain and AI consultancy and R&D
- DAO Master at 2Tokens Foundation - tokenization advocacy.
- Founding partner at TheWayoftheDao - decentralization consultancy and assembly studio.
- Ambassador, researcher and core contributor of Aragon Network.
- Coordinator & Solution Architect of the initiative meta-Belarus: Grassroots Digital State
- Tokenization consultant, adviser and Solution Architect at various companies.
- Link: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ananyinm/
- Domenico Pellitteri (Italy - Romania): ESG Master
- Expertise: ESG and Social Impact tokenization, sustainability strategies, complementary currencies
- Experience:
- Sustainability and Social Impact Advisor for Impact and ESG Funds
- Program Manager and Social Finance Expert for Ashoka
- Policy Officer at the EU Commission
- Analyst and Coach for social startups and municipalities
- Local Development Expert
- Community Currency Researcher
- Link: https://www.linkedin.com/in/domenico-pellitteri/
- Edgar Kampers (Netherlands - Portugal): TokenEconomy Master
- Expertise: Rewards and currencies since 1993, social entrepreneur since 1999, & tokenomist since 2015
- Experience:
- Director EU-Progress funded SamenDoen
- Director EU-Life-demonstration NU-spaarpas (with city of Rotterdam & Rabobank)
- Initiator of the Interreg 4B NWE Community Currencies in Action (new economic foundation; cities of London, Amsterdam, Nantes; Belgium province Limburg)
- Link: https://www.linkedin.com/in/edgarkampers/
- Diana Cardenas Monar (Ecuador - Hungary): Sustainability Master
- Expertise: Climate change, gender equality, sustainable development
- Experience:
- Director Innovation Central Bank Ecuador
- Strategist at the Ecuadorian Institute for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy
- Co-founder at climate action social enterprise B4Future
- General Coordinator of the Climate Finance Group for Latin America and the Caribbean
- Mentee of the Women4Climate Program of C40 Cities
Regulation Guide TL;DR
- What: Set of values for quality assurance and dispute resolution
- Why: To provide security for participants
- How: By committing to the set of internal policies and following guidelines in case of any dispute
- By Whom: Compliance Officer chosen by client organization
- For Whom: all participants of the program
Full Regulation Guide
Values
In order to verify execution of the program with the vision and mission we define a set of values used in internal regulation.
- FUNding is the foundation for strong Relations
First value is to create and build strong partnership relations based on the common source of funding, so the main objective is to cover with funding all the human costs of the projects.
- Awareness is the key to Consciousness
Whenever there is result or no result in any projects, we keep awareness of it and report it regularly, creating best&worst practices list, used for improvements and education of new members. Every member should submit at least one practice to the list with comments and suggestions
- Onboarding is building network of Intellectual Resources
Main resources of Fransis Partnership are natural and artificial intelligence. Whenever we meet new people & algorithms that help us to produce value, we onboard them into the network via existing gateways or create a new gateway - a virtual place where NI/AI can give a response to information flow.
Internal Policies
Values are giving general description of the foundational concepts, meanwhile proper regulation has to be based on specific rules. For these purposes we can derive from the values a list of Internal Policies (IPs) related to the program.
- Relations:
- IP 1: every program always starts with the formal “handshake” - OBBA signature that confirms at least:
- Proof of ID: validity of associated verifiable credential or government-based identification information of the partners;
- RPO confirmation: roles, permissions, procedures and incentives of the partners.
- IP 2: participants within the program should be always funded at least once at the minimum rate outlined as “in-house expenses”.
- IP 3: partnership relations within the program always end with the formal “farewell” - termination letter signature from any of the partners within the program that contains at least:
- Author ID: associated verifiable credential of the termination initiator;
- Target ID: associated verifiable credential of the termination target;
- Reason: clear explanation of the motivation to terminate OBBA.
- IP 1: every program always starts with the formal “handshake” - OBBA signature that confirms at least:
- Consciousness:
- IP 4: every activity within the program should produce a report containing at least:
- Activity description;
- Parties involved;
- Practices and/or tools and/or methods used;
- Objective results of the activity or/and related KPIs.
- IP 5: reports should be submitted before the related funding actions, signed by every involved participant and evaluated by all the partners.
- IP 6: all the partners involved in the activities are responsible for the accuracy and reliability of the information provided in the reports.
- IP 4: every activity within the program should produce a report containing at least:
- Intellectual Resources:
- IP 7: every external participant of the program should receive an invitation upon program completion to become a partner where inviting partner becomes a gateway.
- IP 8: every gateway partner shares incentives of the invitee distributed within the program:
- To receive a share of the invitee reward from related funding;
- To receive a share of the invitee penalty from related violation.
- IP 9: inviting partner who does not want to become a gateway should navigate invitee to an existing gateway, receiving only the first share of incentives.
Guidelines
To facilitate the compliance for the outlined OKRs and KPIs with reality we classify IPs to form guidelines (GLs) according to the values and governance vectors. This set of guidelines derived from IRs in addition to the basic regulation in the EU, will be used as a quasi-legal basis for any dispute resolution or verification decision.
- Proposal:
- GL 1: any dispute regarding program proposal modification or/and proposition of the program to a client organization should be resolved in favor of the challenger in case of breach of any of the following internal policies:
- signed by the involved partners (IP1),
- the proposed overall budget should be bigger than the sum of WPs costs for outlined timeframe (IP2) and designated leadership reward (IP8),
- description should contain essential information (IP4);
- client organization should possess enough funds to cover program overall costs (IP2).
- GL 2: in case of any suspicion of fraudulent or/and terrorist or/and money laundry activity of the client organisation or/and partners involved verify with Principal Regulation Policies
- GL 1: any dispute regarding program proposal modification or/and proposition of the program to a client organization should be resolved in favor of the challenger in case of breach of any of the following internal policies:
- Execution:
- GL 3: any dispute regarding funding of WP-related activities should be resolved in favor of the challenger in case of breach of any of the following internal policies:
- Funds receiver should participate in the activity and apply for the first payment (IP2) OR provide a proof of contribution via the activity report (IP4) signed by the partners involved (IP5),
- None of the partners signed the report should be under the “farewell” process (IP3),
- Information in the report should contain verifiable and reliable information (IP6).
- GL 4: any dispute regarding the rewards distribution should be resolved in favor of the challenger in case of breach of any of the following internal policies:
- Rewards should be distributed among the reward receiver and associated gateway (IP8) according to the established fees,
- Every reward distribution should be based on the reports evaluation by the partners (IP5).
- GL 3: any dispute regarding funding of WP-related activities should be resolved in favor of the challenger in case of breach of any of the following internal policies:
- Regulation:
- GL 5: any dispute appeal should be resolved in favor of the appealing party in case of breach of any of the following IPs:
- Dispute reviewers should not be associated with the same PGF vector group or WP (IP5),
- Dispute reviewer should not be the gateway of the appealing/challenging/receiving party (IP7) OR associated with rewards distribution (IP9).
- GL 5: any dispute appeal should be resolved in favor of the appealing party in case of breach of any of the following IPs:
- Communication:
- GL 6: any dispute regarding the communication content or/and fact checking should be resolved in favor of the challenger in case of breach of following IPs:
- Content should be linked to the associated report (IP4) and contain reliable information (IP6),
- Should not conflict with the Communication Principles.
- GL 6: any dispute regarding the communication content or/and fact checking should be resolved in favor of the challenger in case of breach of following IPs:
Role-Permission Organization Table
The regulation guide is targeting all participants of the program and performed by Compliance Officers, assigned by the client organization as a proposal/execution reviewer.
In order to incentivise Compliance Officers
| Roles | Permissions | Procedures | Incentives |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance Officers | To resolve disputes | To review comments under the proposal post, to review the case and associated report and fill sign-up form | To receive 50% of the challenged decision or 50% of the next remuneration of the challenger |
| All | To challenge decisions | To comment proposal forum post indicating violation | To receive 50% of the challenged decision in case of successful resolution or to lose 50% of the next own payment |
Reporting Form TL;DR
- What: Set of principles to facilitate communication
- Why: To increase awareness and engagement
- How: By following practices to verify and report on program results
- By Whom: program Partners
- For Whom: Token holders/delegates
Full Reporting Form
Principles
We define the principles and based on them we draw and conclude the format of reporting. Transparency, clarity, simplicity and engagement - would be fundamental in any given case.
- Self-Sovereign - respectful to the users ownership over their data and privacy, always providing choice and asking for consent.
- Based on Passion - based on the mutual nature of love to something or somebody, connecting people and things by passion.
- Producing Beauty - returning joyful and fun experience to reward every participant with good feelings and gratitude.
- In Good Faith - sharing a belief in the bright future and our vision on every step of the work and personal life, providing people around with confidence in our cooperation during digital transformation.
Practices
Outlined principals are pillars that should be used for building appropriate culture, so the communication vector of PGF is focusing on facilitation of use of these principals in verification and communication of results achieved in other PGF vectors. In order to build a clear understanding on how to apply the principles we can derive a set of associated Practices (Ps).
- Self-Sovereign:
- P 1: verification of any result should start from the verification of the content to make sure there is no any sensible private data involved.
- P 2: publication of any content should be only under the consent of the associated ownership.
- Based on Passion:
- P 3: verification of the results should not be a subject of any conflict of interests between results owners and reporters.
- P 4: choice of the content for publication should be made according to the passion to increase engagement and loyalty.
- Producing Beauty:
- P 5: verification of the results should always have intention to provide constructive feedback to the results owners and increase quality of communication.
- P 6: publication of any content should always have the intention to inspire owners of results and to increase awareness of the audience.
- In Good Faith:
- P 7: verification of the results should be complete disregarding the number of found uncertainties, mistakes and violations believing that owners of results have the intention to improve.
- P 8: publication of any content should always have an optimistic and supporting summary, encouraging participants to continue the work.
TL;DR forms
Using the outlined practices we can create TL;DR forms dedicated to maintain clear and easy communication of the PGF vectors with the audience. To simplify the process of content creation, we can design questions needed to be answered by the reporters in order to utilyze Practices.
-
Proposal:
- What: Governance-as-a-Service program to configure DAOs that deliver
- Why: Increase DAO’s credibility and value creation
- How: Fix major issues like opportunistic abuse, chaos and informational complexity with the universal governance template consisting of Participatory Governance Framework, Role-Procedure Organisation table and Outcome-based Bonding Agreement
- Terms: €76k for 30+ participants during 10 weeks of program
- By Whom: Leading partner Mike Ananyin
- For Whom: Delegates and token holders of the client organization
-
Execution:
- What: Workshops, analytics and reporting that make vision possible
- Why: Solutions lie in the hands of the community that needs professional guidance to extract them
- How: series of workshops and applied methodologies, such as OST, co-creation, ToC, S.M.A.R.T., design thinking and OKR\KPI setup.
- Terms: 3 working packages covering preparation, facilitation and communication.
- By Whom: Partners composed of experienced facilitators
- For Whom: community members and Scholars of the program: delegates, team/guild leaders, compliance officers\judges, community managers/reporters
-
Regulation:
- What: Set of values for quality assurance and dispute resolution
- Why: To provide security for participants
- How: By committing to the set of internal policies and following guidelines in case of any dispute
- By Whom: Compliance Officer chosen by client organization
- For Whom: all participants of the program
-
Reporting:
- What: Set of principles to facilitate communication
- Why: To increase awareness and engagement
- How: By following practices to verify and report on program results
- By Whom: program Partners
- For Whom: Token holders/delegates
Role-Permission Organization Table
The reporting form is targeting token holders/delegates of the client organization for allowing challenging decisions within the program and progress tracking.
Verification and reporting is performed by Partners of the program after every WP activity.
| Roles | Permissions | Procedures | Incentives |
|---|---|---|---|
| Partners | Verify and report results | To scan working tools, extract results and fill the report form and notify participants | WP remuneration |
| Token holders/delegates | Read and comment reports | Follow the proposal post and comments | To challenge decisions |
You can read and comment full document here.
You can also read the presentation instead 
Risks
The main risk I faced in the past contributing to AN DAO was participation. This time I decided to insure participation by implementing the Scholarship Program.
Secondary risk is rising from the time zones difference. This risk is solved by the proper scheduling, taking into the account time availability of facilitators and participants.
The third risk is connected to engagement during the workshops. To solve this I propose to have Execution Reward fund to stimulate healthy competition between participants to achieve higher results evaluation in order to receive bigger reward.
Conclusion
This template can be modified and re-used on fly creating a tree of governance, where the leaves are particular micro-states of governance, while the root represents the core governance state based on strategy/manifesto/charter.
It is also designed to reincarnate Aragon Academy idea by training GovernMasters - professional facilitators of decentralised governance, that can help many DAOs built on Aragon to effectively deliver value and impact.
Would love to hear the feedback and enhance Aragon Network DAO!
PS: Big hugs and gratitude to the amazing people I am working with, people who provided constructive feedback and encouraged me to research this field and develop the program: @luis @daniel-ospina @lee0007 @fartunov @Incandenza @Shawncubbedge @joeycharlesworth @Samantha @AClay @eaglelex and many others!
Guys, join the program and invite other community members and contributors!
