For an initial draft the points mentioned here pretty much fair imo, this way people just don’t come over for a week to run a proposal…I appreciate that the work the community members put in won’t be over looked cos there’ll be a council to watch out for em
LFGrow awaiting future updates on the proposal, you’ve got my vote
Let’s go 
This right here is a wonderful point !
Overall love the proposal and clarity of it all !! CAT FTW !!
Great initiative.
1.Might be useful to create some mechanisms to establish overarching objectives long term/ mid term to which the specific projects can be aligned to make sure that directionally they are adding to what Jupiter is trying to achieve.
There are concepts of this that I like, but why is there the rule of " Select a lead that has successfully completed at least 2 grants. Additional members should have participated in at least 1."? This will undermine the overall aim of offering new opportunities to new, active, DAO members? It will be too closed shop. Having worked in Academia for over 20 years, it smacks of the same mentality of a Project Lead. Each time, projects are forced to choose a specific academic, purely on name (not necessarily ability) as they are nestled in comfortably. They get all the praise, their CV grows, but the real grunt work is done by others. This is unfair cronyism, and may I suggest that these T&Cs are removed (as they are barriers to entry)?
Thank you for the detailed proposal and the clear outline of the Evolution System.
I echo WTP’s response on this matter.Initially, I had concerns about the Accountability point as well, but I agree with WTP’s perspective. If a workgroup is acting against JUP’s benefits, having the ability to take immediate action is essential to prevent further damage.
Empowering a core team member, such as Meow, with this authority seems like a sensible approach. With appropriate oversight and accountability, this authority can be used responsibly. Urgent vote could indeed be too slow in critical situations, so having a mechanism for swift action would be beneficial.
I believe this approach strikes a good balance between prompt decision-making and community oversight.
Seems like a good frame work, but doesn’t come across as simplified. All will have to start at the Grant process so maybe that requires the most clarity. It reminds me of trying to get your first job but they require you to have work experience ie. other jobs. If the Grant application process has a good flowing portal then it shouldn’t be as daunting as it seems at first.
I made mention of this in last planetary call where kash talked about new WG. I fumed about creating new one , since I clearly know
The proposals of new one will be continuation of old ones.
Why not add those new intake to join the former WG and work together.
Getting on this maybe a play of favouritism. At the end it may lead to misunderstanding, we have a lot of catdet with good product/ proposal so far , how sure that they all going to be added to the WG. Or maybe some friends will add their friends since the proposal will still contain former CWG and CAWG to accept the proposal
Yeah man, the cost of running these WG seems to outweigh the return we get by bringing new people over.
It’s a tough one
I like the whole idea. Waiting for the finalized details and waiting for the answers to people’s questions below this post.
Like for real
There is grant for these WG from onset
Just continue using those grant and bring in more people.
It’s just outrageous.
For me, except a WG group is solving a novel problem that non of the existing WGs are already addressing directly or indirectly, all new applicants should be considered first to be sign posted to a WG that’s already got a framework in a place to fix a problem they are trying to solve. Instead of throwing loads of money towards creating a new WG, a fraction of it can be directed to the already existing WG to finance the team or individual sign posted to them & it makes it easier as those existing WGs already have a framework of accountability which will ensure the new idea delivers fully with results before funds are finally disbursed to them.
Anyway to get the role through the forums, I don’t enjoy discord UI so I stay away
That’s the only place you can get it
Only on discord
It’s an impressive and well-structured system that I believe will bring a lot of clarity to the DAO’s processes. However, I’ve been working on my proposal and building a prototype for over four months now—two months of full-time focus after an initial two months of juggling university commitments, during which I made significant changes to my proposal and the approach I’m taking.
Given the new system, I understand that I now need to go through two grants before I can start a Trial Working Group. This is a significant shift from my initial approach, and I’m wondering what my best course of action should be at this stage. My proposal and prototype were in the final stages, with completion expected next week.
Should I consider revising my proposal to align with the new grant system? Do you think it would be possible to use my prototype as part of the grant application process? Also, how do you recommend I approach this transition without losing momentum?
Your guidance on these questions would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks in advance
LiamVDB
I’ve been underwhelmed by the performance of all the work groups so far. Each one seems to be a vehicle for diverting funds from the DAO to benefit the team’s friends. Can anyone point to any significant accomplishments from these groups? Has any work group actually delivered something tangible?
Given that the CWG already has a $100k surplus for hiring additional staff, community outreach, and miscellaneous expenses, why does it need another $150k to initiate this initiative?
How much money do we have to needlessly burn to say enough is enough.
This is the proposal we’ve all been waiting for! Thanks @Slorg for laying it all out in such detail for us to discuss.
I’ve had several read throughs and would like to offer the following suggestions and feedback (I hope the DAO finds some of them helpful or even just food for thought):
[1] Why JupiterDAO?
Given how pivotal this proposal is to the basic functioning of the DAO, should we perhaps start with a brief reminder of the purpose of the JupiterDAO along with its main objectives and why someone would/should want to contribute (ie. what’s the opportunity?.. why is this important?.. why now? etc.). Does JupiterDAO have a charter? If it does, we could simply link to that post each time a significant proposal such as this is put forward.
[2] What is a grant and how is it distinguishable from a proposed budget?
It might be worth defining what a grant is so that there is no confusion and that we’re all on the same page.
[3] Will this approach (a grant system) attract the best talent or will it attract whatever talent is available?
I ask this because the Jupiter core team assigned a significant budget to the DAO in order to attract the best talent. Now it seems this proposal wants to reduce the size and scope of commitment from the DAO and, in turn, the participant. My personal view is that the best talent will not follow a “microgrants” process. Using the CWG as an example, no CWG member went through a grants process yet the outcome has been very positive overall. A grants system may be too sporadic/whimsical which will be met in kind (ie. irregular participation from the grant recipient). I admit that this is a highly subjective opinion, but sometimes I wonder if the DAO is trying to appeal more to inexperienced yet enthusiastic individuals rather than experts who are highly competent in their field.
[4] Trial period: is 4-6 months too long for a trial?
I know this has been covered in several town hall discussions, but I personally think a 4-6 months trial period is far too long. The point of a trial should be to see whether a Working Group can deliver on its promises which they themselves outline by way of a proposal. The quicker the DAO can establish that a Working Group is working well, the quicker the WG can be formalised as a fully-fledged WG which will strengthen the DAO overall and reduce the administrative burden.
[5] Team composition: let WG leaders lead
Team composition should be left solely to the WG lead and not have restrictive conditions such as “Additional members should have participated in at least 1 [grant]”. WG leaders need to be able to work with the best talent available. Sometimes the best talent available will only work with a WG lead once they’ve proven themselves and not the other way around!
[6] Add the following pre-requisite to all Stages: members must declare participation in other DAOs for similar proposed activities. This will hopefully prevent copy-pasta and exploitation of the grant system. We want to attract members who are aligned with the DAO and not DAO service arbitragers.
[7] Opportunity Window & Length: What is the timeframe of grant projects?
Theoretically, it could be several months in duration with little to no urgency for grant recipients to progress to a trial WG.
[8] Present & Pitch: Is Jup&Juice replacing the need to present on a Planetary Call?
Are Working Groups able to decide whether they want to present to Jup&Juice or CWG office hours rather than both? Please keep in mind that Working Groups have a lot of work to do and presentations are resource-intensive and often stressful.
[9] Increasing this to 200,000 USD or more, knowing that the Grants Council doesn’t have to spend the full amount, will hopefully provide for more leeway and encourage more opportunities for members.
[10] Might be helpful to reiterate the vision and objectives of the JupiterDAO here and the important role Working Groups have in achieving those aims.
Thanks again for considering these suggestions @Slorg and for inviting all of us to have our say. -Matt
this could totally work …so the council could also be like an oversight community…and also wen a team builds out a stats/data portal …this could help the council with what key points works and what dont …win win all around…and that would make things easier for everyone …
Need to be careful of adding bureaucracy and gate-keeping in the way of those who simply want to contribute to Jupiter in simple ways. Its almost a rhetorical frame work if it deters anyone who would have otherwise participated. “What happens if we get dishonest actors” shouldn’t become the full focus in the light of few actors. More so ‘how to’ apply for a grant, what the budget and scope is. Most of which can be solved through an application UI. Still its good to lay out your frame work early, which is what we see being discussed here.
No roles man, but you can interact to get a badge
Shoutout to @kemosabe too for preparing this proposal