Thanks for working on this and sharing, @AvsA!
I’ve always been an advocate of transparently reporting DAO expenses. As DAO secretary, following in 2022, I compiled one of the first working group spending summaries. I was thrilled to see this carried forward by @limes following last term, and I expect it to continue.
Feedback
- The Endowment as an expense: From an accounting perspective, this would fall into the asset category. Also, with the Zodiac module used, the DAO still has root control over the multisig that holds the Endowment. Listing this as an expense does not seem accurate.
- Endowment Value: The correct amount is ~56M with the second tranche deposited, not 160M.
- Unspent as a usage: This may be a semantic discussion, but by my definition, unspent is not a usage.
- Establish a reporting period: I understand this post is meant to be an exploration of data, but I would like to see more rigid reporting periods defined. Any time closer to the beginning of the term – when working funding traditionally occurs in a lump sum – will distort funding utilization. If utilization was based on the fiscal cycles, it would be a more accurate representation of utilization term over term.
- A large amount of small tickets - This is to be expected. The purpose of the working groups was to delegate the more minor spending decisions to trusted, elected individuals who are still accountable to the delegates.
Again, super great to see this type of reporting. I just hadn’t had a chance to provide feedback yet.
–
A note on the labels: I’m more flexible on labeling working group funding as all expenses because it is approved spending (let’s assume the DAO won’t get this back). Still, in reality, anything in the three main working groups multi-sigs, by authority of smart contract, belong to the DAO and could be clawed back by vote.