Analytics & Research subWG

Overview:

Analytics & Research (A&R) subgroup

Scope of Work:

The full scope of work under A&R subgroup is as follows:

  • Analytics
    A&R is responsible for the gathering of intel and analytics of all things pertinent to ENS DAO, especially Governance, under one roof. A&R should also actively seek to pull engagement data from third-party providers such as ShowKarma pertaining to users, delegates and contributors. A&R shall also actively seek to archive & analyse data pertaining to off-chain and on-chain votes, ENS token dispersion, Discourse data, Discord data and Twitter analytics. The aim of this exercise is to equip the DAO with all the necessary data and information required in its several decision-making processes, e.g. Steward elections etc.

  • Research
    A&R is responsible for briefing all working groups with data-driven approaches to streamline ENS DAO. One example of a duty of A&R toward ENS DAO is to formulate a dynamic and machine-generated model for capturing reputation and health of DAO delegates, stewards and contributors. Currently, most reputation models are static, manual, rudimentary and gameable. An ideal reputation should not be gameable or static. In this context, A&R should look into already existing approaches such as classic Hedonic modelling & regression and Hedonic-AI regression to rid us of manual and gameable models; this is possible but needs dedicated work to formulate training datasets (for Hedonic-AI) and quantifiable data for fitting (classic Hedonic). This work requires devising detailed semi-annual surveys to capture the state of ENS (at the very least) in consultation with the ENS DAO community and contributors. The result of this undertaking should be to provide the DAO with actionable intel during elections (e.g. reputation & health of candidates) and other relevant decision-making processes. A&R is also responsible for actively assessing threats to ENS and propose ideas to make the DAO resistant to risk and volatility; an example of this is to devise practical ways of reducing dead vote count, off-boarding process for delegates & contributors, and suggesting improvements to governance model.

Subgroup name:

Analytics & Research

Subgroup coordinator:

@inplco

Contributors:

@inplco, @fig (FlipsideCrypto.xyz), @mmurthy (ShowKarma.xyz)

Roadmap:

Q2-2022:

  • First semi-annual survey of the ENS DAO in June 2022. The survey will be designed in a quantitative, anonymous and no-text format to gauge the health of ENS Governance and to signal possible amendments to the current processes. The strict quantitative nature of the survey prompts should enable the results to be utilised in Hedonic regression model for steward and delegate health/reputation in Q3/4. The results will be showcased in form of community-mandated steward and delegate health cards. This must be ready before the next Steward elections for Q3/4.

  • Partner with Show Karma to pull daily engagement data for contributors, stewards and delegates from Discourse and generate first ENS DAO (semi-annual) Governance Report. This will contribute toward multi-modal graphic representation of steward and delegate impact. This must be ready before the next Steward elections for Q3/4. Flipside Crypto may make contribution in this report with their analytics inputs.

Q3/4-2022:

  • Develop the dynamic, linearised (easy AI switch later) and ungameable health model employing Hedonic regression methods. This is where the quantitative surveys performed in June Q2 will become useful from hard analytics perspective. The results of hedonic regression will yield the relative perceived values of traits/qualities/processes of ENS DAO that the community finds meaningful.
  • Bring Discord (bot search; have some ideas from DAOist GGG talk by Kristin Chen from Top.gg), Twitter analytics into the frame
  • Research work on two subjects:
    a) Voting power diffusion in Sybil-agnostic voting systems aka “dead votes” issue (like ENS),
    b) Propose practical off-boarding process for delegates, and
    c) Propose re-delegation strategies to counter dead votes.
  • Second semi-annual survey in December 2022
  • Second ENS DAO Governance report
  • (to be added)

Scheduler:

Calendly - inplco.eth

6 Likes

@inplco thanks for putting this together and adding a more detailed scope.

Flipside is happy to commit internal resources around on-chain analytics, focusing on key aspects of protocol health. Areas we can assist with are Governance, Delegation, On-Chain Voting, and $ENS.

We are excited about the insights this Subgroup can contribute to the DAO and greater education it brings to both the end-user and working group contributors.

See some of our past work here: ENS Community-Enabled Analytics Bounty Program

(View comments for results and analytics from the program)

5 Likes

I have added a calendly link on the post (for later use) in order to plan a weekly or bi-weekly meeting; I suggest we begin meeting regularly in Q3/4. Before that, I only foresee one or two meetings at most.

There is significant work that I have committed to before end of Q1/2 and the Steward elections in roughly 6 weeks from today. In order to carry out this work, I need two things:

  • @mmurthy: API end-point for daily engagement data from Discourse. This will be used in generating health cards for stewards, contributors and delegates before the elections, as well as the semi-annual report on ENS Governance. I’ll send you a DM on Discord to iron out some details.

  • @fig: API end-points to queries made by users on the CEA portal of ENS; some of the questions asked therein are already very useful. This will go in the semi-annual report. If I think of more queries, I will pass them on to you.

I also need to request budget for these 6 weeks of work. Currently, I see lots of work for me, followed by significant work for @mmurthy who has to find a way to propagate the daily engagement data (this is not yet implemented in ShowKarma workstream), followed by some contributions by @fig that are not yet clear. I’ll request the budget accordingly; I expect it to be no more than USDC 10,000 total (@nick Is this fair value? I am clueless on this).

If you have any comments, questions or suggestions, please let me know! :slight_smile:

2 Likes

I have begun my off-boarding from ENS DAO Governance, and I will no longer be an active DAO contributor. Analytics & Research subgroup will need a new coordinator or it may possibly be dissolved.

I can take over A&R if necessary.

2 Likes

Couldn’t have gone into better hands! :pray:

tl;dr

RnDAO needs budget approved to buy the license and publish the survey. Survey preview is here: https://shrl.ink/RyaB, but consider it open to further work of course since the context may have shifted a little bit. I have communicated this in person to Meta-Gov, Ecosystem & Community WG stewards in private some days ago already, so the survey work is essentially halted.

1 Like

@Coltron.eth

:arrow_up: I have already moved on from it a month ago. But thank you for the notification; message received. I hope the power trip felt good :rocket: Good luck for Term 2

Hey @Cthulu.eth,

How can we request payment for the work we did for the survey inplco was also working on please?

For context: We originally made a proposal for research on Community Health that was considered to be too early for the DAO but the work we carried out was not part of said proposal. After seeing our proposal, Inplco suggested that our skills could be used for another piece of work (the survey he was working on) and we accepted to work on it. The payment is for the survey work. It seems said budget was requested but never approved (there was no response to the requests from the stewards), and we’re just finding this now and well, it looks like we just got caught in the middle.

@Coltron.eth suggested we can ask MetaGov stewards for payment but not sure how to do that…

Thank you for pointing this out. If only I had the chance to explain this in response in the private thread :thinking: The work carried out by RnDAO was not part of their earlier proposal. The work they carried out was part of the agenda of Research & Analytics subWG approved by Nick ↓

1 Like

Hi @danielo, I haven’t formally taken over A&R, I just volunteered to if there was a need, so I’m not up to date at all on any promises inplco has made.

If a budget hasn’t been approved for this then you’d have to speak to the meta-governance stewards directly: coltron.eth, nick.eth and simona.eth who can be messaged here on the forum.

The fact remains that that sub-WG did not have budget approval to spend funds on the DAO’s behalf.

I don’t see where I have mentioned the funds. Simply taking the opportunity to outline the facts since the thread was closed and bossman didn’t have his facts straight. RnDAO is aware that no funds were guaranteed although I had assumed that work approved in the agenda will be compensated pending discussion on the precise amount. Clearly my assumption was wrong. They are now seeking retroactive funding without my support which you should judge in public on merit.

Hi @nick.eth to clarify, we’re not arguing whether the subgroup had a budget or not. That’s internal to ENS and I understand we got caught in the middle of it.

We’re just hoping you can see that we did work as requested by someone who was ‘working’ for ENS, in what looked to us as fully normal (given that for example, Alisha replied to a post that explicitly said we were working on something. And this is not to place blame, I’m sure Alisha has other things to do rather than controlling what’s been greenlighted or not. I mention it to exemplify how confusing and frustrating this situation has been for us).

So given we acted in good faith doing work for ENS on a short timeline to deliver on what we understood was a legit request, we’re asking ENS to have the grace of approving the budget for us.
It’s not much for ENS and could be considered the unfortunate cost of a contributor moving ahead before approval and signing on a supplier, but given we’re not a wealthy organisation, it would be quite frustrating to take the shortfall.

I was carrying out the work that was explicitly approved by Nick in the foundation post as shown above. Unless the DAO’s intention is to get work for free, I do not understand their reluctance in negotiating compensation. I had repeatedly mentioned this work in forum multiple times as well as in calls so it was no secret.

1 Like

It sounds to me like, at the moment, the responsibility of payment lies on @inplco, since it seems he’s the one that promised you some funds that he hadn’t actually secured.

What is the amount that you thought you would be getting? That would help put into context the extent of your situation.

I genuinely don’t understand your mindset. You spend so much time on these forums accusing people of centralizing control from the DAO (often when they are actually proposing a decision to the DAO), but here you are suggesting that you thought a forum reply from a single DAO member was tantamount to sign off from the whole DAO (or even a working group)?

Any reluctance would come from the fact that this is the first any of us are hearing about a random forum member promising DAO funds that were never allocated. The “DAO” never asked for the work, it was just you (or more accurately I guess, a sub-working group you ran with $0 in the bank to promise to anyone).

:rofl::rofl: Ok

The creation of a sub-WG was approved. That doesn’t entitle you to commit the DAO to spending money, and no budget was approved for your sub-wg. It was your choice to commit to a contract without funding to back it up.

I’m sorry you were caught up in the middle of this. If inplco told you he had the authority to commit the DAO to a contract, he was misleading you. As carlos points out, your recourse is against inplco, who commissioned the work from you.

So you did not approve the roadmap? Or did you? Should I not have started the work? What should my next step have been?

I can answer it myself actually. I should have submitted a request for budget. But I did that. It lay there unanswered despite my tags to you. Then I wrote privately and Simona said she will get back but didn’t until I reminded her three weeks later. You know about this. I guess my mistake was to start the work right after your approval. I finished the Stewards’ Health Cards and RnDAO did the survey and before I stopped the work due to no-response on the budget, it was too late. So yes, it was my mistake to start the work preemptively. Not the fact that you ghosted your duty as a steward to reject or deny or comment on the budget, not that two other stewards were awol, but a working contributor is indeed the problem here. Before you give lip service to ‘contract with the DAO’, there was no contract, only people working in good faith in an unresponsive environment. RnDAO was kept in loop the whole time about the state of budget proposal; they just made the mistake to work in good faith just like myself.

The only thing that was approved was creating the subgroup. I know you understand this, and your attempt to muddy the waters by implying it gives some wider approval is disingenuous.

1 Like