[ideation] SCP-149 Product Workstream Renewal

[0xFBL]

Mission:

Curate and propose a product roadmap based on research, user feedback/behavior, future market opportunities, and informed vision. Align with the mission and goals of the ShapeShift DAO and other workstreams for efficient execution.

Goals:

• Goal 1 Execute on a Calculated Portfolio of bets
• Goal 2 Retention 🔂 Revenue & User growth
• Goal 3 Mandated Metrics & Measurement
• Goal 4 Experiment more
• Goal 5 Talk to our users
• Goal 6 Assist Grants Partnerships

Abstract -

As a product-centric DAO, the Product Workstream is accountable for a number of activities: cross workstream alignment on execution, retaining/acquiring users, growing the FOX ecosystem, speccing/launching new product lines, and achieving Shapeshift’s mission. A YES vote for this renewal is continuing support for the strategy of a portfolio & the bets within, plus the prioritization of the current roadmap.

We’ve included a budget renewal with only three addendums: one for team software, one for an event or two, and a FOX hedgey allocation for the work stream leader. This is a minimal cost adjustment monthly, but since it’s a 6 month budget may give some sticker shock.

Specification -

Instead of a post with repeating details you can find all specifications in the posts about the Portfolio of bets. Feel free to dig into the tomes here. We track our goals at every office hours improving our documentation, rigor, and velocity.

Expect a cycle for planning for the q4 roadmap and then a set of goal refreshes by EOY.

Responsibilities

• Prioritize and adjust the roadmap with cross workstream alignment.
• Analyzing and surfacing new revenue streams that are not listed yet in the roadmap, but reporting back to the community with more details.
• Coordinating research and resourcing in partnership with the FOX foundation
• Organizing and running the Monday afternoon roadmap and timeline meeting and coordinating with product and engineering throughout the week to remove blockers, assist with product related decisions and keep things moving through the feature development process and Product/Engineering status updates throughout the week.
• Product/Engineering representation at the Weekly Ops Sprint.
• Facilitate bi-weekly office hours to provide updates on progress, report on KPIs, and offer space to the community to ask questions, give feedback, and pitch ideas.
• Draft product specs, review with Beard regarding designs, work with ENG workstream to evaluate engineering resources, and iterate the feature development process.
• FBL will also spend a significant effort in defining core engagement loops & behaviors for users on Shapeshift, working backwards to activation moments to surface quick wins for development.
• Orthogonal to this is identifying user buckets or personas, working with marketing and other workstreams.
• Hosting and Leading Spec kickoffs/spikes/breakdowns between Product and Engineering.
• Spinning up regular retros (at either phase completion or large feature completeness)
• Leading and continuing all scheduled team syncs and 1-on-1s.
• Managing Budget and workstream contributor payments made through Colony.
• Coordinating strategy sessions, touchpoint, and retros for launches. Facilitating where necessary.

Quick list of things we said we’d do that we did:

Arranging phase 2 strategy talks, and getting the Phase 2 roadmap proposal posted to the forum and moved through governance. see roadmap on portfolio of bets post

• .
• FBL will provide additional scope to the workstream lead role by synthesizing strategic outcomes for the product team, making phase 2 a reality, and guiding more day-to-day improvements for efficiency and alignment across workstreams. 🤷 ✅
• Organizing and running the Monday afternoon roadmap and timeline meeting and coordinating with product and engineering throughout the week to remove blockers, assist with product related decisions and keep things moving through the feature development process and Product/Engineering status updates throughout the week. ✅
• Product/Engineering representation at the Weekly Ops Sprint. ✅

Budget and team

The Product workstream will consist of 4 members. 3 full-time and 1 part-time.

• The additional addendums are a modest stipend for two events & earmarked SaaS budget:

  SaaS

• current funds: [$1248] —> continue holding funds in colony until we negotiate with zenhub or linear for annual plan.
• Additional earmarks: Figma [$65 a mo for the team] (one more thing im forgetting)
• Events
• ETH Chicago (this is earmarked and we will be thrifty: API materials for PTT to bring to builders at the hackathon)
• ETH Denver ( I earmarked $200 a team member for flight or stipend, up to them if they want. Also, if we don’t go, then return to DAO after the term)

I mentioned in the last post:

I’ll be taking full stables for the first few months, at which point I’ll propose taking a portion in time-locked FOX on our next budget renewal. Skin in the game folks.

I’ve proposed a modest FOX addendum for myself, 1k a month and locked as a 6 month hedgey for each disbursal. This represents an additional 6k over the term of the team, and only a 1k FOX increase spend per month (about $480 per month in equity to the workstream lead ). I encourage anyone to let me know if that is on brand with workstream leaders compensation, I hope my value to the DAO has been obvious so far and this is ok!

The total budget breakdown

The monthly September - February budget breakdown will be:

$225,539.40 USDC

35,880.00 FOX (including $2400 in FOX for user testing, not monthly since we haven’t disbursed all of this yet)

$263,819.40 TOTAL

This is the previous total budget:

Apple to apples in monthly cost (thanks @Fireb0mb1 ) the change to the DAO topline is 3% per month. Comparing the cost for the 6 month original cost term versus 4 month term is 16% total increase.

Benefits -

Ships the portfolio of bets, gets the next roadmap iterated, continues to build our two main focus initiatives: the API and the frontend. Unlocks new features, continues alignment with a strategic lens, and continues execution of the product team’s goals.

Drawbacks -

We’re moving with more rigor so we aren’t shipping as many shiny features. Monetization experiments might be murky to communicate.

[Fireb0mb1]

Hi,

The post title should be “Ideation”, since you’ve done Incubation here

I encourage anyone to let me know if that is on brand with workstream leaders compensation, I hope my value to the DAO has been obvious so far and this is ok!

To answer this question I’ve missed during Incubation, Workstream Leaders’ compensation increases aren’t really “on brand” if we judge by other recent Workstream renewal proposals. They all tend to decrease their compensation instead to help with our diminishing runway.

So you would break this trend if your proposal passes, which to me isn’t bad as I have never been a fan of this constant “austerity” mindset. I wish it applied to all Workstreams though, as a side note, I’m somewhat surprised by the sudden silence of people who are usually very vocal about any budget increase (or budget spends in general, even for decreases for the smallest budgets Workstreams).

Also I’d like to acknowledge that you do bring value to the DAO in my experience, I like your professional approach (more end-user input, cross-workstream collaboration improvements) and structure (specs, clear goals/metrics) so I’m not against this increase.

Events ?? —WIP

Should this list item remain in the Final proposal and budget, I think it should include some details. I see the name of two events in the budget Sheet, could you explain in which way Product’s presence at these events would materialize (just as visitors? a presentation?) and if there will a way to measure the benefits of this presence for the DAO.

[Jasperweb]

Hello, I have some comments about this proposal

1. “Goal 4, experiments more” Monetization experiments can be risky and may not yield immediate results.

2. “Increased Spend” Adding cost addendums such as for staff software, events, and FOX coverage to the workflow leader may not be appropriate at this time due to concerns about reducing treasury.

I wonder, is this really necessary?. Apart from these doubts I liked the new proposal

[0xFBL]

Thanks for feedback! I assume you voted “with changes” and that’s appreciated.

• Events: oof my bad. Fixed and edited.

  ETH Chicago (this is earmarked and we will be thrifty: API materials for PTT to bring to builders at the hackathon)

• we will measure success based on the CRM sheet that MKBD put together.
• ETH Denver ( I earmarked $200 a team member for flight or stipend, up to them if they want. Also, if we don’t go, then return to DAO after the term)
• This event is always worth the money for the sheer size/exposure but more importantly the customers we can get in front of.
• As for compensation. By “on brand" I meant: is this comparable token comp compared to other leadership positions? I could always take more of my salary in FOX anyways and keep it at the same amount. But I mentioned when starting in April I'd like to:

  Provide value

2. Get tokens far undervalued for that contribution

Thats my reasoning for increasing my comp ONLY in FOX.

[0xFBL]

Not really necessary per se… just trying to be as transparent as I can while also not writing so many words that it gets confusing.

[Fireb0mb1]

Thanks for the clarifications for the events/budget!

Yes I voted “with changes” as there will be changes from the text submitted in Ideation. By the way I think you can still edit the title of the post to “Ideation …”… unless the Poll prevents this

As for compensation.

Fair enough, as I said I don’t object the budget increase and your raise (tied to FOX’s risk/volatility). I just wanted to point out it is does differ from recent renewal proposals which do decrease their overall spend.

For the FOX share of compensation it varies a lot, some Leaders take (almost) no FOX, other are taking 100% of their compesation in FOX. There is no obligation/guideline, it’s certainly lighter on the “stable treasury” previsions and appreciated, so in this regard you can see it as “on brand”.

But I think it really should be a matter of what each contributor of your WS wants, as GK said in Incubation we tend to make previsions/budgets in stables (if not straight up USD for simplicity) and let contributors adapt their FOX share throughout the year as not everyone can/wants to support the same risk all the time and it can greatly vary during the year.

At the end of the day, you’re trying to convince FOX holders, not other contributors/leaders, so as long as the costs are clearly stated, match objectives, and are comparable, the distribution itself shouldn’t be a major issue when it comes to their vote. (Note: that’s just my opinion based on my observations of other proposals, you’re free to draw your own from each WS’s budget attached to their respective proposals)

[Fireb0mb1]

I’ve changed my vote to “Against” in relation to the current sudden decision by the proposer of going around the governance process and disregarding a previous governance vote which was knowingly and with intent executed by the Engineering WS Leader.

I still think @0xFBL has qualities that make him competent in his work for Product, but his disregard for the governance processes of our DAO, and most importantly the voices of FOX Holders in votes, make me think that unfortunately he might not be a good fit in the organization after all.

You could be right about the outcome of a new vote regarding mandatory fees in the end, but you’ll only know if a vote is ever held for it. There was no rush/imperative need to proceed with the execution of a release with mandatory fees (test or not). The process would now take 10 days to complete for that other proposal, it’s not with 10 additional days of revenue from mandatory fees that you will save the DAO’s financial situation.

Opt-out donations could have been implemented to secure some revenues, and later mandatory fees with a vote in favor of them (what you’re asking the permission to do in that other proposal). Instead you have chosen this forceful path, without a vote, which makes me think you will continue to take liberties that could go against what voters have decided.

Voting is how we should be DAO’ing it, if you wanted specific powers regarding this, you could definitely have asked for them explicitly in your previous proposals, but you did not (whatever the reasons for that are, an oversight or a lack of clarity, it certainly doesn’t give you the permission to reverse a previous vote now).

[0xFBL]

First off, your’re letting go of two other people in your wrath against my decision making. I would recommend you rethink the scope of your comments to the ongoing governance proposal instead of my budget as well but it’s your vote and you can do what you like.

• Ill just simply say two things:

  Thank you. I appreciate you perspective and dissent, you absolutely have the right to be frustrated by a perplexing & complex decision and voicing minority opinions is how we improve and refine things. But that discussion is on the other thread.

As i said in the other thread, im not making this decision lightly. Quite aware that it’s putting governance in check for underperformance and that is hard to grapple with. Thanks to @PTT

• we have a vote in parallel to verify if this authority is valid. As a temperature check, i called some ex-governance folks from makerDAO for fresh perspective this morning and that was their exact takeaway: if things change and you need a vote you put one up immediately while executing in parallel. That's how DAO's actually work in practice, they don't vote on absolutely everything. Circumstance change, you do things, you put up votes as soon as you know that you need to change things which is exactly what is happening. Please take a break, come to your senses, and focus on the governance proposal that matters instead.

[Fireb0mb1]

First off, your’re letting go of two other people in your wrath against my decision making.

I’m not letting go anyone, they’re welcome to contribute to the DAO, just like you, as long as you respect the processes in place. If you want to change them by forcing it, it leads to situations like these, I’d suggest an actual Final Vote that precede your actions to do this. Same for critical strategic changes. Then nobody can contest them.

Thank you. I appreciate you perspective and dissent, you absolutely have the right to be frustrated by a perplexing & complex decision and voicing minority opinions is how we improve and refine things. But that discussion is on the other thread.

It is, but as explained the implication of this recent decision make me think you do not understand or maybe respect our established processes and the limits of Workstream Leaders’ authority. Since I’ve tried to explain how it was a problem, with a specific quote of the breach it would cause, and you’ve persisted anyways I think it’s the latter unfortunately. So I do think it’s worth putting this in perspective for all voters in this Workstream renewal proposal. Your decision making is part of the attributes voters should scrutinize before letting you continue your mandate, don’t you think?

As i said in the other thread, im not making this decision lightly. Quite aware that it’s putting governance in check for underperformance and that is hard to grapple with. Thanks to @PTT we have a vote in parallel to verify if this authority is valid. As a temperature check, i called some ex-governance folks from makerDAO for fresh perspective this morning and that was their exact takeaway: if things change and you need a vote you put one up immediately while executing in parallel. That’s how DAO’s actually work in practice, they don’t vote on absolutely everything. Circumstance change, you do things, you put up votes as soon as you know that you need to change things which is exactly what is happening. Please take a break, come to your senses, and focus on the governance proposal that matters instead.

We are talking about a key strategic change for the DAO, that affects other area of the DAO activities (grants/partnerships),about a subject that was highly controversial last time it was voted on, to the point that it later caused changes in our Governance processes… but you consider that asking FOX Holders their decision on this and delaying your action by 10 days is equivalent to “voting on absolutely everything”? I think we unfortunately don’t have a common measure of the importance of this change.

You say it yourself, you have deliberately done this to challenge the established structures/rules, it shouldn’t be a surprise that people who have built them react and try to protect them with the available tools (namely voting). If you come to your own senses and apply what FOX Holders have voted for (opt-out donations on ThorChain Swaps, no mandatory fees), and admit that such drastic changes in strategy shouldn’t be made in a hurry or based on an interpretation of two words, without a clear signal from governance, then I’ll think you have learned how governance works in this DAO.

My only preoccupation is for FOX Holders’ votes to matter, contrary to what I’ve heard/read today I have no “political” motivation, I have no intention to be a WS Leader or anything more than what I currently am doing in the DAO. I’d be sad to see you leave over this, and I do hope it can be salvaged in some way.

[willy]

I never thought I’d be voting against a product workstream renewal proposal, but after product workstream’s decision to enable fees without clear community consent, I feel compelled to stand up for what I believe in as well as what I believe the majority of FOX Token holders believe in. This important and controversial decision should absolutely be left up to governance IMO, as SCP-128 explicitly specifies::

“Mandatory fees would not be added to THORChain swaps, and the DAO would not be able to see the results of that fee experiment unless another proposal was passed in the future” - SCP-128

Are there instances where those with power making decisions on behalf of the community can be justified? Absolutely. I think preventing a malicious attack or potential vulnerability are perfect examples of this. However, I believe there should be very strong arguments for doing so, especially if the decision is a clear violation of what the community has defined via governance, and extra-especially if this point was raised by multiple contributors prior to the decision being made. I’ve heard the arguments for why this was done, and none of them come close to what I think the threshold is for justifying such a contentious and strategic decision. What is even the point of a DAO if a few core contributors have unilateral ability to go directly against community governance?

I would have no issue with the decision if the community had approved it, and I do not understand why those who made the decision felt it wasn’t worth seeking community consent, which they could have had in 10 days.

Similar to @Fireb0mb1, there are many attributes of the current product workstream that I would like to see renewed. I do think it would be quite harmful for the DAO to lose @beard, @PTT, and @0xFBL as contributors, and I am very open to changing my vote if circumstances change. Unfortunately, I can’t support this current proposal after the important and controversial decision was made unilaterally today, not because it goes against my stance on whether or not to add fees onto open protocols or services that ShapeShift integrates/aggregates (it ofc does), but specifically because it goes against another topic which I am even more passionate about: whether or not workstream leaders have unlimited authority to override governance.

I also want to make it very clear that I am voting on this matter as an individual community member, exercising my personal rights as a FOX Token holder to vote. My opinions do not at all represent those of the Fox Foundation.

[hornyfox]

FOR! SUCK MY DICK WILLY BOY

[Giantkin]

please no inappropriate comments

[Giantkin]

Please no inappropriate messages.