I believe the key to successful DAO budgets is not complex technical tools nor path limiting KPIs, though these are the 2 tools we instinctively request and reach for.
Instead, I believe in good old risk limiting and human accountability.
Risk Limiting - Limits damage via crawl backs and phased releases. Prioritize heavily community members with strong proof of work in community. Scope it such that even if a given budget is a complete failure, the damage to the system is limited, and we learn.
Human Accountabilty - Make sure that the recipients of the budget communicates intention before the release, and needs to do a public reflection on that after sufficient time has passed and results are clear. Capacity for DAO to cut future funding if accountability is unclear.
Why?
Using risk limiting and accountability rather than inflexible systems and random KPIs (people tend to promise random shit under pressure), we allow for much more flexibility, room to navigate and capacity for empathy.
While I understand the skepticism towards all things DAO budget related (given the utter abuse in this space), Iām very positive that we can focus instead on the positive potential of the people (hah, another ppp) instead.
PPP & Trust
End of the day, a good DAO and community is not made from code or money. Itās made from people, good solid people who we have to trust have the best intentions.
If there is no trust, itās impossible to work in a PPP manner to grow the pie together, since the environment will be predominantly occupied by negativity and demands.
So trust we will in the good of people and our peers - with solid risk limits and firm accountability measure of course.
Your perspective on DAO budgets is refreshing and insightful. Focusing on risk limiting and human accountability over complex technical tools and rigid KPIs is a thoughtful approach. By emphasizing community trust and the potential of people, you highlight the importance of flexibility, empathy, and learning from experiences. This approach not only safeguards the system from potential failures but also fosters a more positive and collaborative environment. Your emphasis on trust, risk limits, and accountability strikes a great balance, ensuring a constructive path forward for DAOs. Well articulated! Thank you Meow
grants should just be smaller n given out.
trial wgs should too, with unused funds returned
wg stretch over years, should have very clear accountabiltiy checkpoints
Totally agree that things must be cut if there are clear sings that the initiative wonāt see the light. It would be great to have a form which you can call a ābusiness caseā if you will, where the initiative owner explains the problem, what is the solution and the benefit and provides other details such as expected delivery (even if that might be delayed, possible milestones).
The fact that grants proposal just passed, will enable us to do much cases of trial and error and squeeze out all the gems from the community and form a great crew.
I agree, even if we fail on protocol we have to sprint around corner. Hope at next LFG launchpad we can at least participate.
I know thats some rain coming, Im not pushingā¦ lol
how it should be.