Should the DAO have Tally as a Dedicated Governance Service Provider?

[estmcmxci]

@clowes.eth

I don’t think that proposed committee is relevant here.

If not here, then where? Say more.

—

@clowes.eth

Some of the features they are building also have a public good nature in that other DAOs can get value from them.

The problem with framing it as a public good is that it then begs the question of whether the funding should come from the PG multisig.

—

@clowes.eth

Give them an appropriate amount of money to do the things we need. Assure them, that (assuming they deliver) we will continue to pay them appropriately over time to build features we need.

That’s what the DAO Tooling line item was for, but the amount requested by Tally exceeds it, which is why a Social Prop was necessary — so that, when the time comes to request funds in Q3, there’s a clear precedent for why Meta-Gov is requesting that amount (my best inferred guess).

—

@clowes.eth

Delegation of responsibility is vital for the successful operation of an organisation - everyone is incredibly busy. We’ve empowered the Metagov stewards by voting them in. Once we have had the community discussions we should allow them the autonomy to make these decisions.

This seems to reflect a departure from the earlier position advocating for the formation of a technical advisory committee to support resource allocation decisions, mentioned in Toward Accountable and Strategic Funding in ENS, toward simply granting stewards full autonomy after community discussion.

Could you clarify your position?

—

@clowes.eth

The only situation that would require further consideration is if there were clear conflicts of interest e.g. If one of the stewards were an investor in Tally. I know Spence wrote this: My Conflict of Interest Pledge as an ENS DAO Steward. I’d like to see the other stewards do something similar.

+1

—

I believe that both our arguments are structurally parallel, semantically differentiated, and directionally equivalent.

---

Tally merits funding, but I would like to see Meta-Governance proactively discern what the DAO needs in order to ensure longevity. IIRC, @cliffton.eth said something like, ‘With the size of the DAO’s treasury, there should be some assurances about funding.’ But honestly, to be fair, that feels somewhat inappropriate or misplaced given the relatively non-critical nature of the tooling compared to the funding ask.

I’d like to see greater use of RFPs to invite broader participation. Healthy competition fosters accountability and raises the bar for quality — let’s cultivate a standard of excellence.