Thanks for this post guys, in fact a similar implementation of the ecosystem and in fact, at the moment representative of one of the best DAO mechanism in the crypto market
I really appreciate all the development of the ecosystem and I expect even more active and huge improvements in the future by achieving the goals that are currently in the roadmap and that will be achieved together with other projects aimed at improving the ecosystem
I’m a bit surprised by the lack of replies here.
Missions seem to be a new way to re-invigorate Governance and growth initiates for OP. In the past, governance has been largely grant related - almost 70-80% of volumes and proposals.
A quick question about missions - are teams able to post multiple missions?
And if so, across multiple intents?
Alliances may submit, and be selected, for up to three Missions per period, across any number of Intents.
Do the periods correspond to seasons? And if alliances are compostable, how does that effect a three mission cap?
If I’m in an Alliance A and Alliance B for different two separate missions, does that mean I can only participate in one more mission for the period. Or do I have two more missions for each alliance?
I just spent some time to understand how it all works together in Season 4, and I must say I am quite excited. I especially like the collective intents - I will introduce that in my company as well, it is a great concept.
Thanks for your reply here @lavande.
I will echo @soyboy inquiries:
Are you able to have separate alliances for different missions?
I’m excited to see the Missions and Intents initiatives kick off in Season 4! One of the unrealized advantages of working groups/subDAOs is the ability to have lean and flexible to take on internal tasks and evolve alongside the DAO. In practice, we do not always see this play out for various reasons, and these groups become grandfathered into DAO operations, which can ultimately lead to the misallocation of resources. The alternative solution (Missions/Intents) provides clear goals for the collective regarding the overall goals of the funding and also emphasizes the flexibility of working groups via Alliances, which seem to be a working group spun up to handle tasks on a task-by-task basis.
You can be a member in multiple Alliances; the Alliance Lead, incorporated entity, and/or multisig should not be the same in more than 3 applications/proposals
In regards to the Pilot of RetroPFG Investment.
Is there an indication of the investor’s expected ROI (%)
Pretty excited about this one. We believe that it is the natural step after some intense seasons past in the distribution of funds to different initiatives, which have fulfilled their mission (others not so much) and that it is time to iterate on something different. Having the foundation propose missions is a good first step; however, we believe that the missions of the foundation must have a feedback stage with the governance to improve their scope.
We understand that quests will bring in new participants who will be intent on proposing or completing a quest. We believe that the presentations of the alliances and the reputation system are well established so that governance has a detail of who, the group of people, are behind these working groups and where we can request information on how they are progressing with their tasks.
If approved, the first step is for the (approved) alliances to have a category in the forum where each one can update in the form of a thread, the progress and milestones of the missions.
Based on our experience in the need for financing for the development of initiatives, we believe that there should be an item for the proposals to choose how much initial capital they would require to start up, in a range no greater than 30% of the total, taking into account the size of the grant, with the explicit details of expenses and their justification and why they would be having difficulties raising funds from other sources, we should evaluate that possibility.
Also, a locking period for funds for one year is a barrier that can prevent new players from working in the Optimism ecosystem. This can lead to the fact that we have already known actors, which leads to a centralization of the services provided to the DAO. Governance must consider the economic difficulties of some regions to access immediate financing. This is a common concern already seen in places like Latin America.
Thanks for the information, a bit of knowledge about the direction of development is always useful.
Awesome, Am new here but this seems great.
welcome to this community. Here we are to test the democracy. Have fun and do not hesitate to ask questions.
Hi there, you need to submit your Mission proposals on the forum by June 21st at 19:00 GMT.
Love the way all initiative are aligned to vision,goal and has measurable performance indicators.
Impressive and innovative governance approach.
Detailed experiment, only suggestion is posting clear impact driven KPIs with learning every month for evaluation of success and new experiments and introspection.
Coming in a little late with this, but want to +1 on this concern of centralizing services from known and well funded players, in a way kingmaking. Would love to see more pluralistic support and contributions sprouting from LatAm.
my own opinion, i’m fine with centralizing some services if they’re proven and dedicated to our success. i’m not sure we’re at the place where we’ve found such an example, though