I wasn’t even necessarily thinking infinite prop house (what Builder is doing). Are there thoughts on why that would be a better approach?
Also just a ballpark, given we have 5 ETH in the treasury, what would feel like a reasonable amount to contribute to this?
I have no issues with all 5 ETH going to a prophouse, there haven’t been proposals coming in and a PH or PH adjacent round has always been on of our goals.
Actually I think with the treasury it’s always like having an infinite round and the point of a prophouse round is to be more focused on specific prompts for people to fulfill
My first impression is that the entirety of the treasury going to the prop house would be a bit unwise, just being that we (as a DAO) have no experience successfully running a prop house. If it is successful, we can always run another round.
What would you like to see as the focus of a prop house round?
funding issues on existing projects or support creators to minting on contracts like assembly press
If I can chime in here, I think Public Assembly would work well with setting ourselves a “collective intent” in order to frame the needs of the DAO and provide a framework for building tools/infrastructure for all to use.
This approach reminds me of “mandates” in non-profit orgs and would set a tone for accountability towards a short mission established by a working group.
been inspired by this post from the [optimism collective] to expand on my thoughts on this(Season 4: Our next experiment in community governance — The Optimism Collective)
Strategy and prioritization are crucial muscles of any successful organization. Executing these thoughtfully becomes even more challenging in a DAO. Season 4 introduces “Intents,” which are flexible and directional goals designed to align and focus the Collective towards shared goals. All work supported or executed by the Collective should be in pursuit of these Collective Intents. In Season 4, the Collective allocates a specific budget for each Intent, aimed at supporting the highest leverage initiatives working towards that Intent.
Missions and Alliances
Most DAOs experience structural challenges wherein working groups resembling persistent business units are individually funded for an indefinite period of time. Individual budgets are allocated out of an unscoped treasury, and consolidated into an overall budget that is often unsustainable and tends to overfund non-core work while underfunding strategic work.
With the inclusion of “Missions and Alliances,” the Season 4 structure was intentionally designed to avoid these types of challenges.
Missions are proposals for specific initiatives that achieve an Intent. There are two types of Missions:
- Proposed Missions - Submitted under an Intent, these missions allow the Governance Fund to support a broader range of initiatives aligned with Intents.
- Foundation Missions - Defined by the Foundation, these missions are akin to public Requests for Proposals for the Partner Fund and also work towards Intents.
Alliances are groups of contributors that temporarily work together start-to-finish to accomplish a Mission. An Alliance can be a pre-established organization or a group of contributors that comes together specifically to complete a Mission.
Eg. Working group (ff89de) formed an “alliance” to complete the “mission” of setting the foundations of public Assembly with the “intent” of creating an infrastructure towards what’s missing in this space.
I think this approach could be less exhaustive than seasons since we can have start-to-finish execution type workload and that leaves us flexible to commit further if we would like.
would be open to elaborate on this during the next townhall
If it’s just a working group with objectives I lean towards just calling them working groups with objectives however if you search “working group” in the forum you’ll see the previous conversations trying to instantiate those things. It always loops back to not having offchain voting channels like a snapshot (which you can’t do without an ENS names) and giving those groups provenance before forming like a specific proposal the group can refer back to.
just to make sure this is on topic, are you asking that specific WG run their own prop house rounds? or suggesting it is too early to do a round without more structure
also can you give an example of why the collective intent wouldn’t just be completing issues on existing projects and building new media with PA tools like assembly press
Imo what is being laid out here^ are (some of the) mechanisms by which we can pursue a “collective intent”, but not the “intent” itself.
I think @projectmehari said it well earlier when abstracting that the “intent” of ff89de was to create/set foundations of PA.
I believe working groups, formally/informally recognized and/or self-identifying as such, typically are bound together by some sort of shared intent/vision.
I think what this whole question speaks to is what is the vision moving forward for any given working group, or even PA in its entirety? Why are we here? What are we doing? I have thoughts about that but will save for now.
To be v explicit, I would say the reason we are here is not to “fund existing projects” or “mint works on assembly press”, but rather something greater that we are striving toward — accomplished through actions such as the ones mentioned above
PS: have been offline for the past 48 hours tapping in bc I find this convo v interesting. may be slow to respond but will check replies !!
okay ill bite, what’s a small scale prop house?
This is awesome
A prophouse is an offchain voting round/competition where people can submit ideas in proposal form and token holders (of PA, in this case) are able to vote on the winners.
This is one of the ways the nouns community onboards more people to whatever ecosystem is holding the round, without them having to hold tokens in that specific DAO/Community/Club.
We have participated in some, I have particpated in some independently but it’s sort of expected that nouns model communities implement some type of offchain event where people can freely create.
Not all nouns dao’s are open source development ecosystems but ours is, so the culture that prophouse is made for, stimulating continuous hacking and creation, we sort of already have that.
you can look at some other rounds here:
when people say small scale they are referring to the amount of eth allocated to the winners, even though not all rounds end in eth prizes. so we are talking amount how much and what categories could PA do.
purple just did a round with POAP I thought were cool
I can definitely talk more about this at the town hall tmr! What I meant by “collective intent” is what @tranqui mentioned about having a type of “collective vision” that is shared
I think you bring up an excellent point here that could develop into a more concrete collective intent which is to properly document the working group’s progress throughout Public Assembly.
giving those groups provenance before forming like a specific proposal the group can refer back to.
What is the need that is being fulfilled? What ties that working group together?
Attribution is important here because it ties into not only recognizing the working groups’ efforts financially but also highlighting their contribution to the ecosystem as a whole.
I created this Figma deck with a macro overview of some of the efforts led to this ( this was done very quickly so apologies if I’m missing context here).
To come back on the prop house rounds, I think it would be ideal to set up a working group whose “mandate/collective intent” is to support dev infrastructure by proposing ideas for how to expand the toolbox available for PA at large.This could be categorized under Education or even as an extension of the working group that made “flexible” happen.
undeveloped thinking here, so feel free to add your thoughts.
Thank you for this, I understand now with the visual,
I’m fine with whichever term we decide to use but I would like to propose a different term for “collective intent” like: “goals” because its easier
and when I use the word provenance Im solely talking about people being able to find the working group’s origin on the blockchain, like through proposal, or if it’s curated through a contract that PA deployed.
feel free to correct me but to document and it’s not onchain is like doing half of the PA vision?
yess we’re on the same page here. and I think by documenting I mean like mirror type post ( or rather a blog), that gives context as well as the on-chain contract.
Reigniting this convo to prep a small-scale prop house round for Public Assembly. Per @salief comments last townhall about making sure we have enough participation for each round, I suggest we organize a livestream event to jam together and ideate on fleshing out the details (open to all).
Here are the following categories I would propose:
Open Round: An open round where PA members are encouraged to propose any idea they believe will benefit the Public Assembly. Anyone with an ETH address is welcome to propose. Once the proposing period is complete, PA members will vote on their favourite proposals. The proposals with the most votes will get funded.
AI Chat bot: We had chatted previously in the forum about the possible integration of a PA chatbot ( see here for past experimentation. I’ve seen examples of GitHub repos we could fork to make this happen, maybe adding a type of UI focus round would be cool? Open to suggestions here!
Assembly Press: cc @0xTranqui with the upcoming merge of the revised AP, we could open the conversation , to onboard contributors to PA. Also, bringing the Assembly Press (AP) indexer here for a possible prop house round.
For compensation, I was thinking 0.25 - 0.5 eth per round would be appropriate here but we would have to flesh out the requirements a bit more in-depth to make it a fair use case of time.
let me know what y’all think!