I’m not really privy to anything that’s gone down here, and my gentle sensibilities may have been slightly offended by the specific manner in which this was handled, but I think the points are overall quite valid.
I feel the disconnect here personally as well. IMO we make many decisions in voice chat or smaller discussions, in ways that don’t end up documented in the public forum. This is, in fact, the first issue I worried about with our governance process; that said, I admit that I’ve found myself so busy I can’t even keep up with the activity in the public forum adequately, much less follow my own advice and document my own positions here consistently.
I have zero context here on what happened which prompted this concern. To a large extent that’s a me problem; I’ve been so heads-down recently that I haven’t been keeping myself in the loop. I completely agree with the statement here, I’m obviously missing something important because I don’t understand why it even needs to be said. The extent to which we approve extravagant budgets is the extent to which we need to do governance better.
My best guess as to the underlying tensions is that they parallel the extent to which we’re relying on multisig holders and a centralized treasury too much. Compare, for example, how we do things today to what the situation might look like if all proposals had embedded TXes which immediately allocated funds: in that case, it would be unambiguous what was allocated, when it was allocated, and where control and responsibility for it lay. Relying on “just-in-time”, month-to-month funding from TMDC stable stacks is effectively adopting an extra “shadow” layer of complexity and risk.
I personally feel the capital inefficiency full preallocation would involve is an insignificant concern next to the hard-to-quantify and potentially-organizationally-fatal downsides a sparse-allocation “debt-ceiling” style of allocation could have. (Like, for example, pressure not to ask TMDC for funds to cover an already-approved budget allocation causing someone in leadership to have a crisis of confidence.)
Again, zero context on the specific concern here so this might not be at all relevant, but my Hot Take is that we’ve so far largely failed to deliver on the promise of decentralizing employment. Our workstreams currently act essentially as traditional employers; there’s very little in the way of contributors who are operating on a full-time-equivalent basis without contributing almost exclusively to a single workstream. I personally feel like our workstreams are developing in a siloed direction, and that’s not healthy.
To be candid, I share a sense of underappreciation, though it might not be coming from the same place as the OP. I feel it’s been quite difficult to make contributions that aren’t in service of someone else’s priorities, I’ve had work I’ve tried to do towards advancing my own goals dismissed or taken as a hindrance, and I’ve seen blame given much more readily than encouragement. I’m a special snowflake and this analysis is inherently subjective, but these are distinct differences from my experiences with ShapeShift the company, and I’m worried that my subjective experience here isn’t isolated. To the extent that it isn’t, I think that we can, and we have to, do better.
I really don’t think this vote in question was intended as a signal of anything ulterior, but I can see how it could be reasonably feared to be, especially in an environment of limited information. I’m particularly sensitive as a security professional that it’s very important that those in positions of trust (the definition of which I think probably reasonably includes large FOX holders, especially those whose holdings exceed quorum) not only act in a trustworthy manner but be perceived to act in a trustworthy manner. We can’t succeed without trust, so it’s essential that those that need to be trusted by others visibly telegraph that their actions are sober, deliberate, and backed by transparent rationale. This is true in general, whether discussing a software component like a smart contract, the developers of a protocol, multisig holders, or holders of significant voting power.
I feel that the extent to which members of the community are concerned here is the extent to which we must improve on this point. In a very real sense, anything that someone might perceive as drama is drama, and it will kill our community.
I was a ShapeShift-the-company employee, but I was (almost?) the last person hired. I was a remote, mid-pandemic hire, so I didn’t get to share much of the office culture – never even got to see it, actually. I’d also only been working for a matter of months before the plans for decentralization were announced internally, and most of my “immediate family” of centralized co-workers aren’t full-time DAO contributors any more.
All this means I feel a strong connection to the “new generation” of foxes. It also means that my FOX bags are smaller than any other former centralized fox, since I was the lowest-seniority employee on the pile.
I point this out last, simply as some context for my thoughts above. I sincerely hope my perspective and these observations are helpful.