Requesting ENS DAO for an RFP to establish a dedicated Research, Analytics & Development (RDA) Working Group
Scope of Work:
The full scope of work under this working group is as follows:
Analytics
RDA is responsible for the gathering of intel and analytics of all things pertinent to ENS and ENS DAO under one roof. This includes ENS Tools, ENS Leaderboard, ENS Sales Bot, ENS Dashboard, ENS Dune Dashboard etc. RDA should also actively seek to pull raw data from third-party providers such as ShowKarma pertaining to user, delegate and contributor engagement. Besides the already existing data hooks mentioned above, RDA must also actively seek to pull, 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.
Research
RDA is responsible for briefing all working groups with data-driven approaches to streamline ENS DAO. One example of a duty of RDA 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, RDA 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. RDA 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.
Development
RDA is responsible for keeping an active tab on the overall DAO ecosphere beyond the realms of ENS. This requires making sure that ENS is present at global Ethereum conferences and proactively looking out for ways to improve itself. It was a bit underwhelming to see no ENS presence at ETHAmsterdam while it clearly being one of the most famous and respected DAO. RDA is responsible for ensuring ENS’s sponsorship in Hackathons, ENS’s presence on panels, workshops and speaker lists. ENS should lead the way in how-to-DAO. RDA should also seek to foster DAO2DAO relations where the principle of public goods is a common theme; there are many DAOs with the same aligning ideology as ENS, where ENS has the possibility to engrain itself in other crucial ecosystems thereby increasing its public good footprint.
Selection Criteria:
Demonstrated ability to parse all forms and sorts of data, and be able to suck every drop of information out of it, aka be an expert in Data Analytics
Be able to push the envelope of ENS DAO and enlarge its public good footprint
Every line of code must be open-source
Budget:
Operational: Between 100,000 USDC - 250,000 USDC per year depending on the agility of proposals
Travel: as necessary during conferences
Timescale:
6-9 months to ramp on to full throttle
TempCheck
Should ENS form a dedicated Research, Development & Analytics Working Group as outlined above?
Yes
No
0voters
Please suggest changes or additions to this RFP in the comments! This pRFP is work in progress!
Notes: I have proposed this as a WG since I believe it should be under the umbrella of the DAO and not a third-party for-profit organisation. Having said that, the composition of this WG will be dissimilar to the other 4 WGs. Ideally, this WG should have 2-3 dedicated contributors – ideally a lead and two other contributors. TNL should put up a vote for the DAO to delegate the responsibility of appointment to them (TNL) since I think this is more of an appointment/hire than an election.
PS. Please remember to state your objections below in comments so the pRFP can be improved!
All of this work could take place within the Ecosystem WG under a subgroup or subgroups. There is no need to establish a new working group.
The bar for establishing a new working group should be high and require a clear need for a new working group along with evidence that the work cannot take place within an existing working group. While I think all of these points are definitely worth exploring, I think the work can take place within the Ecosystem WG.
@slobo.eth - what are your thoughts here? could this be an Ecosystem WG subgroup?
That’s a discussion. Writing this out would probably take material time and would be better after an initial discussion. I appreciate the clarifying question though.
If anything, I imagined this to fall under Meta-Governance, not Ecosystem. The primary purpose of this subWG would be to drive efficient governance using data, not necessarily targeting ENS ecosystem but rather the internal governance of DAO. Thoughts @Nick, since you are the only working member of the WG? Some parts of it obviously overlap with Ecosystem but that is the case for many things. It is nearly impossible to categorise them cleanly.
Analytics & Research: I welcome the initiative of providing data-driven insights to ENS and ENS DAO. It seems to be an emerging trend at DAOs and it’s really needed.
Part of it pertains to meta-governance, so I get the argument of having it included in the related WG. However, the proposal offers to include ENS tools, dashboards, and other components in the scope of the analytics work, which makes it less fit as a Meta-Gov WG subgroup. I’m not sure that this is a strong enough argument for creating a new WG though. Should initiatives supported by the DAO be necessarily part of a WG? This is a candid question, I’m not familiar with the way contributions to ENS can be done.
Lastly, the Development part, at least the way it is described in the RFP, seems to be clearly in the scope of the Community WG.
The MetaGov WG specifically deals with matters related to the governance of the DAO. There are different points raised in the initial post that may be suitable for the MetaGov WG.
If you are interested primarily in a subgroup related to DAO analytics or anything that is DAO specific and related to internal governance it would fall within the MetaGov WG and you should request to form subgroup(s) in the MetaGov WG.
However, most analytics related to registrations and integrations etc would fall within the Ecosystem WG.
If you would like subgroups formed, you can make requests to the stewards of the relevant working group(s) and go from there. Where there are questions about what WG should handle the work, there can be more of a discussion to determine the correct working group—it really depends on what you are requesting.
The question raised here was whether there should be a new WG formed. The test is not abstract at all. There are four existing working groups. If work can fall within one of the existing working groups, it should. Based on the points raised in the initial post, I cannot see anything that would not fall within an existing working group.
As has been correctly pointed out, the work might be split across subgroups in two or three working groups. It really depends on the nature of the work, but looking at this in more detail, you could split this work up between all of the working groups.
DAO Analytics = MetaGov WG
Ecosystem Analytics = Ecosystem WG
DAO-specific analytics reputation and voting = MetaGov WG
Conferences, merch etc = Community WG
Public goods DAO alliances etc = PG WG
The work doesn’t need to be siloed. To the extent that there is cross-over between WGs, the different subgroups can work together or one working group may decide to defer to another working group.
Thanks Alisha, as long as the concerns are only about the structure of the proposal, it can be worked on. I will draft an alternate formation where four RDA analysts are spread across all WGs, acting as liaisons and coordinating similar to a hover group. Is that something you will entertain? Each WG will then have its own liaison (in the native RDA subWG). I guess this is sort of like a distributed “WG” where analysts will be coordinating in a distributed sense on issues outlined. They could pull funding directly from the WG as well according to their needs. However, there should still be lead on the four analysts and they will likely be working on overlapping projects most of the time despite being a liaison in their WG.
Thank you for your input Lefteris! I have floated a new proposal considering most objections were around the formation of a new WG. New proposal outlines subWG formation within each WG
What is a “high bar”, “clear need” or which evidence can be given? This is an abstract test, that can be interpreted by anyone in any fashion they want.
My question is for the future, not for this specific case, because I agree with the new allocation you suggested in your last message for the work described in this proposal.
The high bar refers to the fact that forming a new working group should be a last resort. If work can fall within an existing working group, it should. If it can’t and there is a need, it might make sense to form another working group. The test is subjective, but it is not “abstract”.
To the extent someone wants to propose a new working group, they should first consult with the stewards of each of the existing WGs to see whether the work can be carried out under an existing WG. In so far as stewards for all four WGs feel like there is no logical place for the work to take place, a discussion can start (as a temp check) on whether a new WG should exist.
This description now is subjective, I agree, thank you!
I’m still of the opinion that the previous phrasing, with “clear need” (as opposed to just a “need”?) etc is abstract – but ok, it’s not important:)
I really don’t see a reason for this cumbersome process you propose, especially since the stewards in some groups are not very approachable.
Which task fits which WG is something that should come out of the WG descriptions, not from their stewards’ personal opinions.
If someone sees a category of tasks that don’t fit under any of the WGs, why won’t they open a temp-check already? Of course, the temp-check should include an explanation of why the task doesn’t fit any of the descriptions of the existing WGs.
Stewards are responsible for the formation of subgroups within WGs, so it makes sense to first consult stewards before requesting the formation of a new WG.
You can definitely submit a temp check for a new WG without consulting the stewards, but the first question that will likely be asked is whether the stewards have been consulted and there is agreement that the work cannot fall within an existing WG.
If the person, who has not consulted the stewards, can prove that the work cannot take place within an existing WG, there is nothing in the working group rules that stops such a proposal from being advanced.
I don’t really agree, but actually, the parts you omitted while quoting my previous reply could still function as a reply to what you just wrote. So in order not to repeat the discussion, let’s just agree to disagree for the moment?
Thanks for taking the time to discuss, I appreciate it:)
Currently, it has been decided to start this initiative within Meta-Governance as a subWG: Requesting expedited formation of Research & Analytics subgroup, with an intention to ramp it up in Q3/4 across all WGs. I’ll add you to contributors’ list in the subWG.
