🏛️📞 MetaGov Working Group – 2025 Meetings: Tuesdays at 2pm UTC (Currently 10:00 am ET)

🗳️ Meta-Governance Meetings
26

Details

Time: Tuesdays at 10:00 am ET (2pm UTC).
Google Meet Link: meet.google.com/bms-grvp-jbw

Stewards:

Agenda

  1. Weekly Endowment Updates (@karpatkey + @Steakhouse )
  2. General DAO Updates Section
    1. Open Space for SPP Discussion
  3. Open Discussion

—

Notes :memo:

1. Weekly Endowment Updates (@karpatkey + @Steakhouse )

1444×810 113 KB

  • The market has been brutal.
  • Portfolio weight: 36% stablecoin, 64% ETH.
  • ETH generated $29k, stablecoins $15k
    • ETH was generating more than stablecoins this week.

1446×808 95 KB

  • APR at 3.38%
  • Allocation of funds at 99.99%
  • TWAP has stopped since March 26th because the price broke below $2k
    • Will wait and revisit this topic to find the best time to resume TWAP

2. General DAO Updates

Open Space for SPP Discussion

  • Feedback for the amendment for choosing between basic and extended options.
  • Nick’s comment was discussed that suggested ranking the budget separately, which would simplify the process and align the snapshot vote with current ranking methods, but it would add complications.
  • The current state of interfaces for voting is looking good, a lot of progress is being made, and they feel confident they will deliver.
    • The requirement for strong battle-testing before the official vote is acknowledged.
  • Voting only through Snapshot would be opaque, custom interfaces are much better.
  • A strong desire to move things forward and define next steps is needed
  • Governance takes time, and all conversations are valuable
  • Nick’s proposal has merits, but the current proposal amendments might fail due to Nick’s disagreement with the proposal
  • Token Delegations concerns are pointed out briefly
  • Voting Mechanism and Capital Allocation document by Netto
  • There is a Telegram group where UI providers are helping each other.
  • Excel spreadsheet as a Simulation for vote splitting was shared by Netto.
    • Demonstrating that providers with two budgets are at a disadvantage if budgets are used for ranking.
    • Delegates want to express preference via basic/extended budget, but providers may change to one budget due to the voting mechanism.
  • A suggestion to apply with just one budget has been voiced to mitigate challenges.
  • It’s pointed out that allowing separate voting for extended vs. basic scope leads to vote splitting, incentivizing everyone to propose one budget.
  • James summarizes three options: continue without change, proceed with the original proposal with amendments, or propose removing the basic vs. extended scope.
  • Request to add Brantly’s feedback/suggestion to the existing proposal has been unanimously well-received.
  • Feedback is requested from service providers and delegates regarding their stance on the proposal.
    • It’s important to hear from voters and create a better proposal if needed.
  • Alternative Proposal Suggestion
    • First, rank the projects and then rank the budgets in a second round.
    • There is concern about getting caught up in the granular details of voting mechanics, tho.
  • Priorities: focus on the ideal situation or the most practical solution.
  • Netto’s algorithm explanation should be in all UIs and should be added to the proposal as a reference.
  • Blockful is happy to help other UIs with implementation
  • Decide whether to include specific dates in the proposal
  • Delegates should vote on the UI during the testing period to find bugs and gather data.

3. Open Discussion

  • /
1 Like