SPS Governance Proposal - Subsidize DAO Project Manager Proposals
(Edited)
fde4be33f1977483d62638644e28da148c4d29b3
The SPS DAO will subsidize proposals for the DAO Project Manager by burning 100,000 DEC per proposal created by the DAO Project Manager. The DAO Project Manager will document and invoice the DAO for the amount of DEC that needs to be burned when submitting a monthly summary of work and invoice for the DAO Project Manager position.
These proposals will be reviewed and revised by community feedback with good faith attempts at reaching a soft consensus before being created. The DAO Project Manager's proposals will otherwise operate the same as any other proposal aside from having the DEC burned by the DAO at the end of the monthly billing cycle instead of upon proposal creation.
0
0
0.000
No brainer!! Necessary for the functionality of the job!
I of course support this, thank you for doing this proposal Clay.
Also I want everyone to know that you paid our of your own pocket the cost of this proposal and the last one. Both are purely proposals to make the DAO better, and neither were something you wouldn't done on your own. So thank you for caring about the DAO and stepping up when things are needed even before you were on the payroll!
Could it not be proposed to make an exception to the 100k dec cost for proposals coming from this entity in regards to official Dao buisness related ones? While this helps with dec control through burning it also continues to remove assets the Dao holds that give it value which In the end is what investors are drawn to. Just a question.
I was originally going to go that route, but had multiple people suggest the DAO burn the DEC. It doesn't matter much to me either way, I just need to be able to do my job effectively and I can't afford to pay out of pocket for every proposal we're going to need in the near future.
Congratulations btw and thanks for the prompt reply. Initially I was against the hiring but seeing more and more interaction from you, it seems we got the right person for the job. It's a shame you can't do a proposal with polls in them since this subject is a necessity.
Thanks! Hopefully I can change a lot of people's minds. Going to do my best and try to get everyone working together to build up our DAO!
id rather we exempt the dao like @smokelord suggested long term, but I will support this proposal as a step in that direction, I hope you do consider making a proposal at a future date that includes his idea.
I didn't really mind either way, but the burn was the option that got the most support.
I prefer that too @smokelord and glad you are thinking that way. Since this will be small amount of DEC being burned, I don't object. But if it was more meaningful then I too would have an issue.
I would prefer this. I think the 100K burn was primarily in place to make sure that we didn't get a ton of useless proposals. I doubt the community manager for the DOA would be doing that - and if so we should fire him/her :)
you doubt it but you have no certainty. this proposal is shifting our democracy very hard toward socialism. It needs limitations and controls built in.
Well that's a no brainer if I've ever seen one!
basically a good idea. but i think there should be rules for it. like maximum number. whether it has to go through a certain process to be considered a dao proposal in the end, and not some private proposals, or whether any specific criteria have to be met. can it only be dao things or also ingame things? etc etc
I think that would also help you in the end and protect you from some insinuations in the future.
#nobeautifulthingswithbots
I thought about trying to quantify it and put in limits but everything I came up with felt kind of redundant. Like I was going to put in something about being expected to act in good faith and only make proposals after gathering a soft consensus among community members but then we get into how to define and enforce it etc... at the end of the day this is just something I need to be able to do the job I've been hired to do. If I act irresponsibly with it then I'd assume I just get fired.
Obviously makes sense, I wonder if there is anyway to speed up the process on things that are almost unanimous. Like a super majority number we could hit early on to get things moving faster
One thing I really want to figure out is how we could handle an emergency vote situation. I hope we never need one, but for example... if an LP is under attack we don't want to wait 2 weeks to address the problem. It's on my mind and if I come up with something that makes sense or get some free time I'll open a discussion about it and see what everyone thinks. We'd need to be extremely careful about how something like this gets implemented to avoid it being exploitable. It may be something as simple as giving Matt emergency authority under a specific condition... but then again there will be people that say "he could just create the condition to give himself the authority." It's a complex issue but one that is definitely on my mind.
One way to handle an emergency situation is to have it that the DAO director has to ask Matt to take action.
Before Matt takes action he needs to send an action proposal to the DAO director for aprovel. Once he gets the DAO directors aproval of the action he can act on it.
This would all be documented of coarse. This way at least 2 people are involved.
Just an idea.
This way if Matt thinks action is not needed then he can say so.
nobrainer
Yes, absolutely.
I believe we need more clarity here. this has no limits for the DAO manager to write blank checks.
the DAO manager could laterally bring proposals fourth every hour, and just burn up the DAO dec funds on half baked ideas.
Also the idea of the 100k DEC burn was to make sure users had to use their own DEC to bring fourth a proposal. in this scenario. the DAO manager could bring everyone's proposals forward at no cost to the individuals. effectively negating the need for community members to have to put forward their own 100k DEC
I believe this needs a up to 4 proposals a month close for free... or something. i see this as ripe for abuse.
I can assure you I have no intention of just making proposals willy nilly for anyone. Anything I make a proposal on will be thoroughly reviewed with good faith attempts at reaching a soft consensus and having the proposals reviewed before I even post them. Keep in mind if I act stupid it's very easy to fire me. I think trying to put a number on this just means we could either be pushing proposals just to hit a number or end up backlogging proposals for the next month. I'd rather it just work organically and if its a problem we'll deal with it.
If there was some wording in here about the DAO manager can not pay the DEC cost for player proposals, I don't disagree with the concept. and i can agree to not having a set number.
If if its not clearly stated, then we cant hold the DAO manager accountable. Just like the proposal passed to ban battle helpers from modern, by simply putting it in the TOS.
if this proposal doesn't say , then we cant hold the DAO manager accountable.
Fair enough. I had played around with trying to figure out a number and some kind of "good faith" agreement on how I'd use it, but ultimately it felt like trying to validate that I wasn't going to try to get myself fired 🤣 I'll clarify that I cannot make random player proposals.
I think that's the most reasonable way to word it. Outright putting "will not make a proposal for another player" seems very open to interpretation when I'm having ongoing discussions with the community throwing out ideas. It would be easy to say I just made someone's proposal. If you check out how we're doing things in the discord right now you'll probably see what I mean. These topics are getting battled over and I'm not making any proposals without getting to a point where there's a solid majority in agreement.
Without meaning to sound rude, assurances aren't worth anything contractually speaking, and especially in the crypto space, something legally binding is needed
There are no limits to this.
No rules
Its literally 4 sentences, for an open cheque book.
There are no limits to this.
No rules.
Its literally 4 sentences, for an open cheque book.
Thank you for participating in SPS DAO Governance @clayboyn!
You can place or monitor SPS Stake Weighted votes for and against this proposal at the link below:
Link to this Pre-Proposal
Updated At: 2023-11-12 04:27 UTC
You should state in the proposal that making proposals costs 100k DEC and that is what is being subsidized.
Reading the proposal as someone who just plays the game it sounded like you just wanted to pay yourself 100k for starting a vote. Most people cant keep track of all the crypto bullshit so just spell it out in plain english next time
by burning 100,000 DEC per proposal created by the DAO Project ManagerNot sure where anything would give you the impression I wanted to be paid for making a proposal. The DAO is simply covering the burn fee instead of me personally paying it.
The title - was just providing constructive criticism as someone not that involved in the space. Take it or leave it
I thought he wanted to burn an extra 100k DEC, after I saw that creating a proposal costs 100k DEC 😅
As long as the community is not suggesting unnecessary proposals for the sake of just burning DEC, I think this proposal makes sense so that the SPS DAO project manager can effectively make the necessary proposals for our SPS DAO governance.
yet your thought is absolute possibility the way the proposal is currently written. there are Zero limitations or regulations outlined here. this needs to be a NO vote until it gets cleaned up.
This is great idea as long as he spends time checking proposal for improvements for the whole community is more and acceptance by whales to improve SPS success
Why was this information missing from the proposal to hire a DAO Project Manager? I recall agreeing to your salary but I do not recall any bonuses being mentioned?
"For posterity, I'm pretty neutral on this topic in general" These are your words, from the failing flowdesk proposal. This implies you can adopt a neutral position in these proposals and it doesn't matter to you. Therefore all proposals are solely for the benefit or detriment of the DAO and not the DAO project manager.
Yeah, there's no way you should be paying for proposals out of your own pocket. I will vote for this and I would vote for it if it was worded differently so that you could make them for free, essentially.
Proposals made by the DAO manager should not cost the ecosystem anything. If we don't like what he is doing, then we can replace him.
Well I don't expect Clay to pay $90 everytime a DAO governance proposal is warranted from community soft concensus and neither should anyone else. No brainer for me.
Could you provide a link to this $90 fee being mentioned in the original DAO manager job proposal? If its not there then this may count as a novel tax deductible expense that the Freelance DAO manager can claim back anyways. Let the tax man determine whether this expense is real or imaginary. At the moment, this just sounds more like an appeal to increase Clayboyn's salary well before any milestone paint is dry
First off, i think with 5k$ a month you can buy enough decs for proposals, and second this has no limits, you can abuse and make 10 proposals a day Just to rise dec price when you want to sell yours, the dao Is a treasure chest till empty?
Rather make a proposal, dao has free proposals, thats fair
yeah
As long as the DAO doesn't adopt every proposal from every player out there. this should be only used for top-priority proposal
I 100% agree that you shouldn't have to pay for the community proposals out of pocket.
But Making the DAO burn DEC for them makes zero sense. Why drain the DAO of assets just because the community wants to hold a vote? The whole point of a proposal requiring a DEC burn is to discourage proposal spam. These proposals, being community proposals, are by their very nature the opposite of spam.
They should be free, with perhaps a limited number per month.
Could suggest this as a community proposal. Nothing says we have to keep it this way.
I support this too. I voted for this because I felt it was least contentious. However if a new proposal came up to remove the cost to the DAO for exactly your reasons, then I would support that too.
Agree and Agree. limited number absolutely. also, if this proposal is any example of the type of proposals that we are going to get then this is a very bad investment. the current proposal is entirely to broad, sets no limitations or guidelines, essentially providing a blank check to the taxpayer slush fund to one person. We need to be able to at least cut off the power of this proposal without needing to submit a proposal. otherwise it's just politics with a few whales to maintain the status quo. I could also see lobbying/corruption where people just pay him 30k DEC to make a proposal they want using the DAO's 100k or something like that. too much room for corruption here.
You guys are dumb if you don't put some set of limitations on this. not only should there be a limit on quantity to make sure we are focusing on quality ideas, but we also need to set parameters for what types of proposals qualify for payment by the DAO. right now we will be giving a blank check to one person to put forth any idea they might dream up. we are literally giving this guy the authority to drive Most regulatory and governmental policy for the game. sure we can fire the person but all he needs is a small group of whales working as silent partners to redirect all value back to themselves. I'm not saying this will happen, but you don't need car insurance until you actually need it, but then it's too late. vote NO until this gets updated. Please.