I appreciate the feedback and conversation from the community around this proposed framework and the earnestness of conversation around DAO construction and coordination, especially as it relates to Aave. I hope to answer some of the above questions and pose counterarguments to some of the pushback below.
Enhanced disclaimer
I am a former employee and current shareholder of both Messari and Chaos Labs. Messari is a prior “service provider” to the DAO (mainly through AGD, I believe) and has an open proposal from earlier this year for more permanent work. Chaos is a current service provider in good standing and continues to execute on the deliverables outlined in its engagement.
Neither entity nor their respective teams had a prior heads-up about this proposal nor input on its structure. I do not believe this framework specifically benefits or harms either concerning current or future opportunities with the DAO other than the fact that Messari may submit a proposal for work alongside various other vendors. I have had conversations with the majority of the vendors mentioned above and believe the DAO would benefit from working with any of them. I have no intention of influencing this process to benefit or harm any single provider outside of guiding a smooth process.
I hope this clears up any confusion and minimizes further distraction to conversation around the framework at large. If there are any other questions, I am happy to answer them 1:1.
Overarching DAO “strategy/vision”
On this topic, I agree with @eboado, that truly decentralized organizations are unlikely to have a multi-year or cohesive plan for the future, but many diverse visions are executed and prioritized in concert by the community. This is a feature, not a bug.
The optimistic potential of this framework is to force those same community members, delegates, and service providers to initiate discussions from the point of “protocol need” first, then review solutions. These can be as focused as selecting a smart contract auditor or as vague as an overarching DAO treasury strategy. It doesn’t need to be an all-inclusive OKR planning session, but starting at first principles when determining when and how to spend money to onboard new partners.
On “Bureaucracy”
Bureaucracy is a dirty word in DAOs and start-ups because it is associated with slow decision-making and a blocker to innovation. That is an unfortunate way to define this proposal and one I wish to avoid. I agree that MakerDAO has been bogged down by bureaucracy and process, one that no one at Aave is hoping to replicate, but that doesn’t mean that all process frameworks are inherently bad.
Process definition, without additional overhead or complexity, should allow for more structured conversations and efficiency within the DAO to make decisions. Instead of reviewing proposals in isolation, it can review them against a standard rubric to best measure solutions on an apples-to-apples basis. Measure twice, cut once, and move on.
This proposal should add negligible overhead or complexity to the operations of the DAO. The majority of governance is not onboarding new vendors (nor should it be), but ongoing maintenance, improvements, and modifications to the existing protocol. These votes, 90%+ of the DAOs decision-making, execution, and development would not be impacted by this process. Existing service providers would not have to go through a retroactive RFP process assuming they are in good standing and the DAO wishes to renew without entertaining new providers (again, a common action in traditional procurement).
To @MarcZeller point on timing: if I believed the implementation of this framework were to negatively impact the ability of existing service providers from executing their priorities, then I would agree that we should wait. This, however, should only impact new service provider funding proposals.
With the offboarding of Llama’s expansive scope, Aave is in a position to examine and engage a diverse group of new service providers under the relieved budget. It is because of this that the timing is more appropriate than ever to consider this framework and competitively onboard new service providers to fill that gap.
Unfortunately, recent history has not shown an explicit eagerness by either delegates or vendors to engage in an unclear proposal process for competing services. More often than not, the processes operate in isolation and the DAO only gets to review one proposal before voting. Drafting and refining a proposal takes time (and usually a healthy amount of conversation with existing delegates and service providers) behind the scenes, and allowing for a proactive process vs. a reactionary response will greatly increase the rate of alternatives appearing.
In a healthy environment, I believe these RFPs should come from one of two personas:
-
Delegates: They spend their time obsessing over the protocol and guiding it to their respective vision of success. We’ve already seen this with @Kene_StableLab proposal for AGD and should not shy away from further empowering (and expecting) delegates to take more active involvement in proposals vs. passive “governing”
-
Service providers: If a new service provider wishes to be contracted by the DAO, let them first make the case of why the DAO needs to invest in this specific domain. This is not uncommon for outbound sales motions at more traditional B2B companies and would allow a period for discussion to center around the DAO’s needs before diverging on budget and vendor-specific concerns
Conclusion
I believe that this proposal is not adding undue bureaucracy but streamlining conversations around Aave spend and future vendor diligence. Its implementation should not be a blocker for any ongoing work, nor should it be a distraction for any existing service provider to continue to execute on their core tasks.
Aave is a leader in the industry on many fronts and I hope to continue that with measured processes and enhancements to push forward the efficiency quality discussion and decision-making.
Proposed next step
Instead of voting on this framework in its totality, we can test it on an isolated basis: an RFP for treasury management.
Right now the DAO has three separate proposals related to treasury management (Centrifuge, TokenLogic, and Hashnote) alongside interest from other third parties such as @Karpatkey and @Avantgarde.
These can be reviewed in isolation or we can challenge each of these providers to present a holistic solution to the DAO to manage the treasury across key verticals such as:
- Yield/risk-adjusted return on treasury assets
- RWA access and construction
- Protocol owned liquidity
- Treasury allocation vs. expenses (ability to pay)
- Cost structure
- and more
This way we can both better analyze both the existing proposals as well as this process before moving forward with either. I would be happy to work with relevant parties in drafting this RFP to test its efficacy in streamlining the conversation.
Side note: I appreciated this point from @eboado and hope to see such discussion continue. Aave has traditionally been a professional community with rigorous debate anchored in what respective community members believe to be in the best interest of the DAO.