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

🗳️ Meta-Governance Meetings
28

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

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

1512×838 140 KB

  • Endowment at almost $70M
  • 35% stables and 65% ETH
  • Allocated funds at 99.97%
  • Current APR at 3.35%
  • No updates on TWAPs
  • The report is not available yet on the forum, but it will be soon
  • TWAP still paused
  • 3k ETH left to swap
  • Next week, an extra slide and more details around TWAP

2. General DAO Updates Section

Open Space for SPP Discussion

  • The key to productivity is to focus on the practical differences between the 2 proposals that are active now.
  • Both proposals allow more expressivity for delegates
  • Alex did a demo for voting and budget ranking
    • Vibe coded, shows a list of all the candidates
    • You can drag them up and down to rank them (including their two different budgets)
    • Unranked candidates kept under “none below”.
  • A pre-processing step ensures the basic budget is always above the extended budget to avoid vote splitting.
  • Question about Non-Ranked Projects raised - how are they treated if someone else compares them highly?
  • Proposal 6.4 allows delegates to choose one of two budgets for applicants
  • Proposal 6.5 allows delegates to rank their basic and extended budgets separately
  • In 6.4, extended vs. basic funding is compared against itself, while in 6.5, extra funding competes with all other allocations.
  • A request is made for the voting UI to show the total cost of ranked items.
  • Displaying the total budget is considered important and should be included in the final version.
  • Suggested - showing a running total or single total of votes, with a “none below” option, to help voters understand the program’s scope.
  • Both proposals on the forum have pros and cons, but “they both do the job.”
  • Nick had reservations about the implementation complexity of the new voting scheme.
  • Concerned about potential issues with voting UIs showing different information.
  • Another reason was UX concerns – the inability to rank a company’s basic budget separately from their extended budget.
    • Wants to be able to express preferences more easily.
    • Believes 6.5 is simpler and allows for easier expression of preferences.
  • With 6.4, voting directly on Snapshot was not possible because.
    • Candidates could be ranked, but there was no way to enter a preference for basic or extended budgets.
  • The post-processing in 6.5 is a safety net to ensure that a candidate’s extended budget is not approved without their basic budget also being approved
  • 6.5 is safer if the voter misunderstands something about how the vote works.
    • In 6.4, if someone misunderstands and puts Project A’s extended budget at the top and Project A’s basic budget at the bottom, the basic budget would be ranked at the top next to the extended, ranking that project at the very top.
    • In 6.5, if someone misunderstands and puts extended at the very top and basic at the very bottom, the only result is that they would actually be voting for the basic and then also the extended.
  • The two algorithms have similar trade-offs
  • The main concern is that 6.5 changes the game theory around service provider applications by comparing service providers versus service providers and extended budget versus all other budgets.
  • 6.5 changes too much from 6.3, requiring service providers to change their applications and delegates to understand the new system.
  • Focusing on what produces the best capital allocation outcomes for the DAO.
    • Optimizing capital allocation should be the “North Star.”
  • There’s a concern about delegates needing to rank all candidates, which is a substantial time investment.
    • A separate centralized committee was suggested for next year that would review, approve, and ultimately fund applications and teams (pending discussion when the time is right)
  • Showing the total budget may help delegates prioritize ranking enough candidates for a good outcome.
  • Noted that the rules last year were confusing, and the original rules for this year were even more so.
  • The average delegate may not understand the proposals due to other commitments.
  • Both votes are up, and presumably, whichever one wins will be honored.
  • The discussion is about whether we are voting for teams versus voting for budgets.
  • 6.5 hits a sweet spot by not just voting for budgets but giving some additional granularity.
  • UI Providers are happy to implement either proposal.
  • Adjustments may take a day, but both are simple.

3. Open Discussion

  • /
1 Like