We apply very rigorous standards of reporting as far as SPs are concerned, I assume that same standards should be applied to any payments for services. I was looking all over the place and could not find any deliverables related to work of Openbox committee. If that deal was properly evaluated, by the very least there should be deliverables reflecting - Due diligence conducted, valuation, financial analysis of their proposition among other things.
Before paying for work, I think it would be prudent to see evidence of that work and deliverables prepared in the course of that work. I personally would be particularly interested to understand why the deal didn’t go through, what were the deal breakers.
Let’s standardize how we retain third-party contractors. Here’s a process @Meta-Gov_Stewards can follow:
Record: The scribe records any tentative decision in the meeting minutes. If the decision alters process, open a one-week review window before initiation.
Triage: Determine whether the task can be handled by stewards or should be delegated to a third party. Stewards retain authority over delegation, with guidance as needed.
Statement of Work: If delegated, draft a statement of work outlining objectives, budget and funding schedule, and expected deliverables.
Review: Stewards workshop the agreement with counsel (currently @Alexu) and present it in a meeting for review.
Execute: Once the SoW and third party are confirmed, Meta-Governance directs the Foundation to act on behalf of the DAO as signatory (ToS delivered by the Foundation).
Monitor: Stewards provide oversight on milestones and report progress during meetings.
That all sounds great, but in my view it is very responsibility of metagov to design those processes, besides to build such a process is a no brainer, the problem is that nobody wants that, it seems that instead of building proper budgeting process its much easier just to give money away in some disproportionate amounts.
Delegate activity and pressure is at all time low (non existent?), maybe that’s another reason metagov doesn’t want to build proper delegate participation framework, so not to create pressure.
For example within Arbitrum delegate activity is very high because they have proper framework, and pressure to drive down some unreasonable payments is very high. I witnessed those discussions myself, people are very intense in terms of negotiating payments. They demand accountability and drive payments to market level. In ENS in the absence of delegate activity that is just not happening. Delegation is very concentrated among closely affiliated group of people - hence we have what we have.
"The Meta-Governance Working Group is responsible for providing governance oversight and supporting the management and operation of working groups through DAO tooling and governance initiatives as well as treasury management for the DAO.
“The Meta-Governance working group are responsible for defining standards for fair compensation (‘Compensation Guidelines’).”
While it is reasonable to say that “it is the very responsibility” of Meta-Governance to design such processes, it is not procedurally legitimate. My reading of the aforementioned does not explicitly state that funding or retaining third-party contractors falls under the purview of Meta-Governance.
Whether it should fall under Meta-Gov is up to the DAO.
I am merely suggesting a structured path the DAO could follow.
MetaGov Working Group – 2025 Meetings: Tuesdays at 2pm UTC (Currently 10:00 am ET)
: