I believe @fig and the Flipside team are well positioned to serve as meaningful contributors to the Aave DAO.
As I see it, DAO governance is usually made up of only a handful of unique perspectives. For Aave, you have the giant, ever-present voices like @MarcZeller, @bgdlabs, and @AaveLabs who have been part of Aave all along. Also, the more specialized contributors like @Gauntlet, @Llamaxyz, or @ChaosLabs who are tasked with a specific duty, and then a plethora of university clubs and others that show up to share their thoughts on the direction of the protocol.
Flipside stands out from the bunch. They’ve been here ever since governance launched, they’ve pushed the protocol forward without a defined role for multiple years, and, most importantly in my view, they come with a fresh perspective that’s not informed by prior employment (e.g. didn’t work for Aave companies) or role-specific limits (e.g. they aren’t focused on a limited scope).
With a fresh perspective and years of experience working alongside other DAO contributors, I believe Flipside can prove itself valuable in the proposed scope. In fact, my only criticism of this proposal would be that the outlined scope is so broad that it could be difficult to track outcomes. I see Flipside’s superpower as them being an outsider to the DAO that’s learned the ropes and ready to improve the DAO for others.
I would love to see the proposal specify maybe a set of three prioritized outcomes from those listed in the “Aligning DAO Strategy, Vision, & Execution”, “DAO Operations & Community Resources”, and “Governance and Proposal Development” sections of the proposal. Flipside sharing what work would be the most important from their perspective would make this proposal easier to digest and the outcomes easier to measure.
Also, given the potential overlap with @MarcZeller 's ACI proposal, I’d be keen to hear any thoughts he has.