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 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.
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.
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.
About alliances and reputation
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.
About Access to Upfront Capital
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.
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.