Thomas, thanks for sharing these thoughts. Quite a few of them resonate with me as true:
-
These applications and the context required to evaluate them makes it a very daunting task to ask of our delegates
-
The decentralized approach of this selection will likely lead to multiple teams being funded to perform the same work
-
The voting system and selection process has become extremely complex
-
There are strategies being used with applications that are less about the application and more about the theory of how to ensure best selection
-
The social pressure applied to voters to vote certain ways will undoubtedly be an issue
The challenge we have as a DAO is that none of these challenges emerged until after we saw the applications and the voting process, both of which were determined by a DAO vote, which doesn’t allow us much flexibility to address them.
That said, it’s incredibly valuable that we, as a DAO, continue to share opinions and discussions that are critical - of ourselves and our decisions - to continually ensure we’re doing the best we can.
I personally will take all of these points to heart, and I’ll keep them close at hand across the next week as the vote unfolds. Perhaps your thoughts will also lead others to examine the process as they vote this week.
I hope an outcome of this is a proposal to codify an administrative layer for the program. I don’t think the initial ENS DAO governance structure is well suited for this program. Not with existing providers and applicants inside the Working Groups and the social and network effects of the delegates and their relationships. We have legitimate issues with conflicts of interest - not because anyone is acting maliciously, but because we are a small community.
I don’t like adding more structures into the DAO, but distributing this much money requires some new thinking.
I appreciate your contributions to the conversation and collective conscience of the DAO. 