Regarding the options for the governence I am in favor of a Hybrid model where the Community acts as one of the reviewers in your model.
Also it would be wise to have subcommittee members 1-2 that can act as replacement. If for some reason a few member suddenly drop out or are not able to vote we could lose the ability to function for a while.
Something that is missing from my point of view is a rule that forbids Rally Staff Member engaging directly for example by voting with Tokens. In the end we share a common goal but I believe the DAO should act as independableas possible.
This could be a little bit controversial but I am also in favor of stopping the funding for a project that already got a grant (5/7 reviewers approved). So that we have some kind of safety mechanism to stop montly payments if we need it.
@Lomo - I like the replacement suggestion. Should help overcome possible delays.
Can you clarify the rule forbidding Rally Staff Members engaging? Are you suggesting anyone that has a paid/employment relationship with the $RLY ecosystem should be ineligible from voting (presumably in the “Community Token Holder Governance” model)? Curious if there’s precedence for this in DAOs / grant programs related to other projects.
On the ability to stop funding - we should review other DAOs / grant programs, but a more robust milestone system could achieve the same goal.
You can just blacklist Rally Staff member addresses to ensure that they cant participate. This is just my opinion to exclude them to ensure independence between the entitys. In the end the community should vote on it. You should also take into consideration to blacklist addresses from exchanges. Otherwise they have the ability to take over our DAO like they did with Steemit in the past.
Even with a robust milestone system you have to use oracles otherwise the smart contract won’t get the information. So i suggest a majority vote from the Committee. Another solution would be some kind of reward system for oracle participants.
Love this! One thing we’ve discussed for grant proposal format for the Rally.io Dev Council is to require things like a commitment to provide things like adequate documentation and/or product marketing, and also include a roadmap/plan for ongoing maintenance and your business model so that we can assess if whatever is funded will be supported ongoing.
@GaryCoover Could you share the link to the smart contract you want to use? I would like to review it. I found a few different versions on the official DAOHaus site.
How will the committee be formed? What are the requirements for becoming a committee member? Will this vote be proposal based or some other means of voting? How do you ensure diversity in the committee?
The $RLY Ecosystem DAO is entirely community run, and is set up to be a grants/funding DAO to help businesses build on $RLY. There’s no “staff” from the initial core team, although the DAO is perfectly able to create it’s own distributed organization if it’d like to over time to pursue whatever goals it deems fit.
SuperLayer is a studio, meaning it hires new staff with backgrounds in engineering, product, and legal/finance to build new products on $RLY. The new products are entirely new ideas for creating social tokens and games that do not necessarily have anything to do with creators. The $RLY technology is now becoming more robust and can support other social use cases besides creators and fan communities, and SuperLayer is going to take the lead to build some of these new products. SuperLayer hopes to inspire others to build wholly new products on $RLY, and the DAO can help fund others who have promising ideas and teams.
I came across ERC1967 for proxie functions. I think this would be really useful for a DAO. We could basically vote on smart contract updates. Is it possible to include this? Etherscan has also support for this implementation.
Within DAOhaus the options for smart contracts are pretty straightforward, with Moloch Version 2 being the best option: https://daohaus.club/docs/devs/.
Seems like Moloch Version 2 can blacklist(jaile) people but there is no unjaile function. Could be rewritten to jaile multiple people in one transaction because otherwise this seems not really gas efficient. Are there any plans to change the code or will it stay like that?
We are currently in process of evaluating identifying potential reviewers and a lead, ideally optimizing for diversity in experiences that can ensure this group is best set up to evaluate potential proposals. We’re hoping to complete identification, ensure interest from the candidates and share back the panel of candidates in the next few weeks.
Reviewer candidates should have experience in some or all of the following:
DAO Contribution
Grant/Investment Evaluation (Crypto or Non-Crypto Tech)
Product Background
Finance Background
Familiarity with RLY Community
To be clear, we aren’t looking for candidates with everything above, but are looking to create a reviewer panel with a mix of these skills. Current Rally Staff, paid Community Ambassadors/Advisors, and Rally.io Council Members are not eligible. Please feel free to DM me on Discord with any potential candidates (@c00v).
Does the 20M $RLY to fund this come from the Team’s $RLY token tranche? Trying to figure out if this will help mitigate problems in token allocation (re: 76% of $RLY tokens in hands of Team/Early Investors).
Fully agree with your take here, the Creator Community should be very active and take the lead in choosing projects to fund. Another mechanism besides blacklisting Rally Team/ Employees you can look into is quadratic voting – so in this case, this DAO could prioritize Creator votes by weighing them more heavily (vs. other token holders, i.e. Team).
Gitcoin and others do this and its a very effective mechanism for communities to take control of their economies.
Great work on this proposal to you and the team, Gary.
Regarding the reviewer option and the criteria for candidates, I would suggest at least 1 member of the group provide dedicated review for technical aspects of grant vetting on behalf of the community. This role wouldn’t necessarily have to be a crypto-technologist or even a dedicated engineer, but should have enough background on how the various aspects of the network function along with common technical conventions in the space.
The rest of the list of qualifications for candidates looks great by the way, as someone who has ran grant programs with no DAO experience and minimal financial background and having ran a small grant program, this is an excellent improvement framework for such a group
As some of these grants will go to projects that don’t succeed, or perhaps provide something viable for the community, but not related to their original purpose, there might be some need to catalog all commitments and deliverables from every grant. This is something I have seen work well in academia for research grants, where as a part of receiving a grant, delivery of the data / materials is required before the end of the grant schedule.
The reason I suggest this, is as the network grows, more ideas will come and go, succeed and fail, and sometimes just poorly timed. And it would be a shame to have dedicated some of the community’s funds to projects that nearly missed and were forgotten, or to never retry an execution outside of the initial grant period.
It would be fantastic if there was a way for anyone wanting to build on Rally to not only see existing applications and projects that are in the wild, but also have a report of all past attempts to draw.
As a side note: There may also need to be some consideration for “maintenance grants” for projects that are funded and creators try out, but the original grant no longer justifies the contributors who built it to continue to maintain even though they may still be in use.
Great point @retired-marshal - that’s the way we were thinking about it: stack the reviewer panel with a mix of technical, crypto and business expertise to have the right mix of lenses to review proposals.
Both of these points are right on. We will definitely make sure to keep a running log of evaluated/accepted/rejected proposals and keep them public, while maintenance grants are also a valid use of funds.
All - just sharing a quick update that we’re still in process of identifying and interviewing both the potential lead and the panel of seven reviewers. We’re hoping to complete identification and outreach/interview by the first week of December, at which point we’ll share more and put the panel up for a vote.
To date, we have received a few referrals and volunteers but would welcome any great recommendations. As shared previously, reviewer candidates should have experience in some or all of the following:
DAO Contribution
Grant/Investment Evaluation (Crypto or Non-Crypto Tech)
Product Background
Finance Background
Familiarity with RLY Community
To be clear, we aren’t looking for candidates with everything above, but are looking to create a reviewer panel with a mix of these skills. Current Rally Staff, paid Community Ambassadors/Advisors, and Rally.io Council Members are not eligible. Please feel free to DM me on Discord with any potential candidates (@c00v).
