Incubation - Should workstream leaders have authroity to conduct monetization experiments(fees, etc) on new products/features?

During the roadmap/timeline call, things got contentious over the ability to add a monetization experiment to the new streaming swaps feature on ThorChain. (adding fees) With the dwindling runway and treasury funds, generating more revenues to hopefully bind us over until the bull market returns.

Without the ability to conduct experiments on monetization, we will be at the whim of our users which we have seen a drastic drop off since the OP season 2 dropped off.

Currently, this scope would allow for creating it for any feature that is being added or has been added since 07/01/2023.

Each monetization experiment will have reasonable success/failure metrics and if the success metrics aren’t met at the end of the experiment period (2 months), we will fall back to any sort of optional donation or no-monetization (whichever is a lower lift per engineering workstream discretion) to lower the cost associated with changing the monetization experiments moving forward.

These things can be changed, as can the scope, according to feedback on this proposal.

for reference: https://snapshot.org/#/shapeshiftdao.eth/proposal/0xe2df126eb6aec916f2c2547c8ed71dc7cc2951644ef1f26af36ece597f5e6036

and https://snapshot.org/#/shapeshiftdao.eth/proposal/0x3382a4363b21fec3a992b1edb9c5caa78391e265121c248c6d81d305ef246f3e

128, which gives Eng and Prod authority to add donations to any new feature as they see fit.

Be interesting to see how this plays out.

128, which gives Eng and Prod authority to add donations to any new feature as they see fit.

For sure, and it specifically says “donations” in reference to the title of the proposal “opt-out donations” (i.e. not mandatory fees). So I see no issue if the Product WS decides to enable opt-out donations on ThorChain Streaming Swaps for example. I actually would like it to be added as soon as possible, considering that 3 out of 4 users donate (and over 50% of the traded volume donates). It would certainly be a good decision, that wouldn’t require any additional vote.

If the goal is to add mandatory fees though, as pointed out during the aforementioned Roadmap call, this particular part of SCP-128 mandates a governance vote:

  1. 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
  1. So if this Incubation gives birth to an Ideation proposal for mandatory fees, it should really mention that voting yes would overturn this previous decision and allow Workstream Leaders to temporarily add mandatory fees to any feature.

    Regarding this Incubation vote, I’m still against adding mandatory fees personally so I will vote “No” because:

    The community has voiced their opposition to them with the expectation that FOX Rewards would be tested (the feature is mentioned in SCP-128). We haven’t had the chance to test FOX Rewards in conjunction with opt-out donations (and reasonable volume for it to be significant) yet. I’m actually surprised that after this the feature wasn’t prioritized more.

  2. We would lose the status of "Public Good" that helped us get funding/grants. At minimum during the temporary tests, at worse, permanently in the eyes of certain partners and customers which actively use only Public Goods.
  3. We'd open ourselves to vampire attacks from a platform without such fees using our code, and this point was made even stronger now that we're going to provide the Exchange API as a product. For the price of a subscription to this service (or even the Free tier), such attack would become even easier, so in a way we're sealing ourselves into this Public Good position a bit more by providing this infrastructure. Don't get me wrong it's a good move (I like the Exchange API), I don't think it was an intended goal though.
  4. If I am in a minority with this opinion now, despite the previous favorable vote and these arguments, I would concede that Workstream Leaders should be able to conduct tests with mandatory fees, but still with the following limits (too bad we cannot do some ranked voting):

    The proposal should specify that if any of these temporary tests is conclusive, adding the feature permanently should be conditioned to a governance vote. I do not think this decision should be left only in the hands of Workstream Leaders (as competent and trustworthy as they are right now), it’s a very serious strategic change of direction for the DAO.

  5. The proposal should define which Workstream can take the decision of starting temporary tests, it might seem obvious from SCP-128 that such decision power lands on Engineering and Product, but it should be stated if it's the same. Unless you want other Workstream Leaders to weigh in and require a majority vote among Leadership for this? In which case I would think such vote and their participant's decision should be made public to the community.
  6. The Workstream Leader who wants to start such test should make sure it doesn't affect prior engagements the DAO has taken while using its Public Good status (e.g. if it cancels a grant or disqualifies us for a process that has already started).
  7. That’s all I can think of for now regarding limits.

    PS: @0xFBL I’d also like to reiterate that none of this is an attempt to undermine your/Product’s efforts, my sole worry is to respect the vote of FOX Holders and the principles they have voted for until now. If these mandatory fee tests were implicitly thought in your previous proposal(s) and you didn’t explicitly state them because you didn’t realize the history of the “fee debate” we had before your arrival at the DAO, I’m sure the community will understand if some of the goals had to be adjusted based on this new information. And if the community shows support to a drastic change of strategy for the DAO, through a vote for this potential proposal, then I’ll accept it without question of course.

@Fireb0mb1 thank you for sharing that perspective. Per this comment:

“We would lose the status of “Public Good” that helped us get funding/grants. At minimum during the temporary tests, at worse, permanently in the eyes of certain partners and customers which actively use only Public Goods.”

1.) Have you considered a scenario where the amount generated by fees greatly outweighs the amount generated by funding and grants? So far we have a good amount of data about how funding and grants (along with optional thorchain donations, which would not be going anywhere under the latest fee change) are able to outweigh the expenses. This data shows that the DAO is a long way off being self-sustainable given its current positioning. Hence the perceived need for further experiments.

ShapeShift’s search for a product/market fit has never entailed positioning itself primarily as a seeker of grants and Public Goods donations. This has been widely viewed as a tactic that could stave the DAO over until it has a sustainable business model. In other words, the DAO’s reason for existing is not to seek Public Goods funding and grants. Thus it should not, I believe, eschew other business models because there’s a concern that we might “rock the boat,” so to speak, on the Public Goods side of things.

The DAO has very limited runway. We’ve already seen how the current approach is not nearly enough to achieve escape velocity. This situation calls for rapid experimentation.

2.) What specific partners are you referring to? IMO there is nothing about turning on fees on one part of the platform that automatically would make people say “OMG it’s not a public good anymore.” Consider this definition of “Public Good” from Gitcoin: https://support.gitcoin.co/gitcoin-knowledge-base/gitcoin-grants/general-questions/what-are-public-goods.

None of what’s presented there is mutually exclusive to fees.

Of course that’s just Gitcoin’s take, and there is no clear definition of Public Good that’s shared by everyone (and even within the ShapeShift community). As @jonisjon would point out, collectively defining words and terms can be a squishy and subjective exercise. So it’s likely that the DAO could continue to position itself as a Public Good even while running fee experiments. And as for customers - well, if the DAO lost some of them because of their distaste for fees on the platform–that would be unlikely to impact the DAO in a substantially negative way; consider that our current user base is not even close to sufficient to make the DAO self-sustainable.

Also, if the fee experiment turns out to fail, well, we’re not married to them. I think it’s highly unlikely that users flee in droves because of fees. And even if some users did leave, many might come back if fees were dropped in response to a failed experiment. But anecdotally, I haven’t seen much evidence that this hardcore “Public Goods means no fees…and if you add them I’m leaving” cohort really exists in our user base.

but easy to turn on the donation aspect for this new setup, without any new proposal nor discussion. great way to do this experiment first. its already approved and going to be added anyway? see what happens.

Thanks for putting this up for governance @PTT .

Agree with fireb0mb and giantkin’s comments that Product and Engineering have clear authority to add optional donations to any features they see fit. In my opinion, it’s equally clear that adding fees to the ShapeShift interface, even as a temporary experiment, requires governance approval.

In addition to SCP-128, this communal authority was made pretty clear in ShapeShift’s decentralization announcement, which I consider the closest thing the DAO has to a whitepaper.

Recommend any community members that haven’t read the Decentralization announcement yet do so; there’s some good content in there, including the vision for FOX rewards, which is dependent on not adding mandatory fees to protocols or services that ShapeShift integrates.

My stance on whether or not ShapeShift should add fees hasn’t changed since SCP-128. Fees alone will not solve ShapeShift’s runway problems, and may even worsen them. Ultimately ShapeShift needs to attract more users and volume, and fees add friction at every step of the user acquisition funnel. On the flip side, no fees (plus FOX Rewards) give ShapeShift the potential to be the best and develop powerful network effects. I cover this in depth in this twitter thread and go deeper in this presentation. While the launch of FOX Rewards got delayed when we (the Rewards Committee) no longer felt that Thrivecoin would be the best partner to power the program, we still have the opportunity to validate (or invalidate) this model.

If anything, my conviction is stronger following the success of optional donations as well as the ongoing opportunities to receive grants, donations, and matching donations as a Public Good.

For this reason I am voting against delegating authority to Workstream Leaders to add fees in the ShapeShift interface, even if it were structured as a temporary experiment.

If the community shows that they are in favor of adding or experimenting with adding mandatory fees, I would be disappointed, but would of course respect the decision.

Have you considered a scenario where the amount generated by fees greatly outweighs the amount generated by funding and grants? So far we have a good amount of data about how funding and grants (along with optional thorchain donations, which would not be going anywhere under the latest fee change) are able to outweigh the expenses.

Of course I’ve considered this, and a good amount of data is also based on low volume. If that’s the basis for measurement then mandatory fees are likely not making us sustainable either. Just a marginal improvement, and that is assuming we preserve that insufficient volume too.

Part of SCP-128 was based on the expectation of FOX Rewards driving volume and thus generating more revenue through donations, while preserving our Public Good status. Why not focus on delivering something the FOX holders voted on?

Also the idea is that adding these fees will make people choose us over competitors (most of which do add fees) does not seem like a good selling point. Especially when some of these competitors, for the case of ThrorChain, as recognizable as the somewhat official platform for the service (ThorSwap, where new features get implemented first).

ShapeShift’s search for a product/market fit has never entailed positioning itself primarily as a seeker of grants and Public Goods donations.

It’s what FOX Holders voted for in SCP-128 as a counter proposal to mandatory fees, with mentions of this status of Public Good in the proposal. This status enabled us to get grants we couldn’t have otherwise. So I’m not sure where you get this impression it has never been a positioning of the DAO, it’s what FOX Holders voted for in my understanding/interpretation.

2.) What specific partners are you referring to?

Optimism for example, their definition of Public Goods is pretty clear, the first sentence (emphasis mine):

Public goods are valuable things (goods, information, services, etc) that cannot charge money.

I think it’s a pretty common definition (the general economics definition, and the Wikipedia defintion Gnosis links to, also mentions a service/good being “non-excludable”, i.e. can be consumed for free), but you right we shouldn’t limit this to a semantic debate.

I just do not think that the DAO should choose a strategy that makes us simple clones of competitors who pretty much all add fees on anything they touch, it’s just not how I envision our DAO bringing anything valuable to the space. If we build something sustainable only because we can tax user each time they interact with our service, why not use existing services which do exactly this right now, with more chains, and why not simply use CEXs which do exactly this too. I want the DAO to build something different.

And as for customers - well, if the DAO lost some of them because of their distaste for fees on the platform–that would be unlikely to impact the DAO in a substantially negative way; consider that our current user base is not even close to sufficient to make the DAO self-sustainable.

This seems like the same argument as above, the same volume with mandatory fees does not seem to make us sustainable either? The marginal improvement for the runway does not seem like a good trade-off to renounce having an actual different value proposition that just rent-seeking on services we, in the end, do not provide but just regroup/aggregate. I have no issue making services we build in majority paying services, you didn’t see me oppose to the Exchange API for example.

Also, if the fee experiment turns out to fail, well, we’re not married to them. I think it’s highly unlikely that users flee in droves because of fees. And even if some users did leave, many might come back if fees were dropped in response to a failed experiment. But anecdotally, I haven’t seen much evidence that this hardcore “Public Goods means no fees…and if you add them I’m leaving” cohort really exists in our user base.

You’re right, I don’t have hard data to measure this, I’ve mentioned customers because we do have to care about them, even if it could be a minority, we can’t really afford to scare people away with regards to the volumes you’ve previously mentioned. But the main point was about partners. If you switch that Public Good status on and off regularly, I honestly doubt a committe like the one of Optimism would consider the project a Public Good, to the point I’ve raised, what would have happened if such decision was taken during our previous campaign using one of their grant? Should we have refunded it?

<< Of course I’ve considered this, and a good amount of data is also based on low volume. If that’s the basis for measurement then mandatory fees are likely not making us sustainable either. Just a marginal improvement, and that is assuming we preserve that insufficient volume too. >>

I don’t think anyone is expecting adding fees would magically put the DAO in the green. Rather, it’s seen as an experiment that would see a.) how fee-sensitive users are (within the narrow scope of where the fees are added), b.) get a better sense for what sort of fees they’d be willing to pay, c.) test the fundamental assumption that users will abandon the platform if there are fees, and d. ) possibly generate more revenue for the community than is being generated solely by donations.

What’s that old saying attributed to Einstein? Something like “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Fees would not be a panacea, but at least they’d be an experiment with something different.

<<Part of SCP-128 was based on the expectation of FOX Rewards driving volume and thus generating more revenue through donations, while preserving our Public Good status. Why not focus on delivering something the FOX holders voted on?>>

FOX Rewards held great promise during the fee debate six months ago. I was excited as fuck about them. However, for various reasons, they’ve gone nowhere – and currently there is no realistic path to having these implemented within the next three, or even six, months. The Product Team has a clear list of things that will need to happen before those are prioritized, and most of things are not close to being a reality.

Again: FOX Rewards is off the table for the near-term. Don’t take my word for it; ask the Product Team.

In the absence of FOX Rewards anytime soon, one of the most compelling arguments against fees during the prior debate is absent. This is a notable change compared to six months ago.

<< It’s what FOX Holders voted for in SCP-128 as a counter proposal to mandatory fees, with mentions of this status of Public Good in the proposal. This status enabled us to get grants we couldn’t have otherwise. So I’m not sure where you get this impression it has never been a positioning of the DAO, it’s what FOX Holders voted for in my understanding/interpretation. >>

I respectfully disagree. That vote was to determine whether to add optional donations rather than fees. It’s true that Willy referred to Public Goods in his reasoning for the proposal, but the specific action taken by a “yes” vote was simply to add the donations; the community assenting to this does not mean that the community had collectively bought into the notion of Public Goods (whatever that means). Granted, no fees and Public Goods tend to go hand-in-hand in the eyes of many, but I would personally feel broad-sided that just because that proposal mentions Public Goods, we must pursue a specific path.

There’s tons of ambiguity here, and precisely why we’re having a community discussion around this. Maybe someone will eventually decide to push a proposal that is designed specifically to say that SS is a Public Good, and outline what that means. If that were to pass, by all means, let’s move forward will a clear distinction/definition.

I personally did not sign up for some slavish adherence to a nebulous ideal like “Public Goods.” It’s not what I’m here for…I’m here to live and breathe the core crypto values that have been the motivating force behind ShapeShift since its inception (both the DAO and the centralized entity). Self-custody. Permissionless. Cross-chain. Public Goods in crypto can certainly be a great thing, and ShapeShift can help play a supporting role, but once we tie ourselves down to these types of definitions we lose autonomy and flexibility.

<<I just do not think that the DAO should choose a strategy that makes us simple clones of competitors who pretty much all add fees on anything they touch, it’s just not how I envision our DAO bringing anything valuable to the space. If we build something sustainable only because we can tax user each time they interact with our service, why not use existing services which do exactly this right now, with more chains, and why not simply use CEXs which do exactly this too. I want the DAO to build something different.>>

As Willy often points out, there are a lot of cool aspects of the platform: its super-sexy UI and cross-chain abilities to name a few. A lack of fees is not the only competitive differentiator SS has to offer. Now that wee’ve built something unique, there’s nothing wrong with trying experiments to see if users will pay a nominal fee to leverage that uniqueness. And to reiterate the obvious: the current approach is not working. This situation calls for rapid experimentation and iteration, lean-startup style. We can’t simply continue doing what we’ve been doing and hope for different results. (And again, FOX Rewards is completely off the table for the foreseeable future).

<< This seems like the same argument as above, the same volume with mandatory fees does not seem to make us sustainable either? The marginal improvement for the runway does not seem like a good trade-off to renounce having an actual different value proposition that just rent-seeking on services we, in the end, do not provide but just regroup/aggregate. >>

Thus far the free market hasn’t found much value in the DAO’s no-fee value prop. It’s been six months since the last fee debate, and here we are, still waiting for that glorious day when the Public Goods model is validated. Maybe that will happen, but we can’t just sit around and pray to the business model gods for success. The API is a good example of trying something different. Experiments with fees are another example. And as I alluded to above, the data we glean could help ShapeShift be much more successful when the next bull market finally arrives.

<< You’re right, I don’t have hard data to measure this, I’ve mentioned customers because we do have to care about them, even if it could be a minority, we can’t really afford to scare people away with regards to the volumes you’ve previously mentioned. But the main point was about partners. If you switch that Public Good status on and off regularly, I honestly doubt a committe like the one of Optimism would consider the project a Public Good, to the point I’ve raised, what would have happened if such decision was taken during our previous campaign using one of their grant? Should we have refunded it? >>

I’m honestly not sure how to answer those questions…it’s hard to say. But what I can say without hesitation is that if those Public Goods partners disappeared, it would not make or break the DAO. Some of these efforts have brought the DAO some revenue, while others have been an abject failure. None of them have brought the DAO meaningfully closer to self-sustainability. So–let’s turn on fees on a very specific part of the platform and see what happens. We don’t have the luxury of perpetuating the current approach ad infinitum; our limited runway says otherwise.

Dear ShapeShift DAO Community, I welcome this proposal & accompanying process to add clarity to a murky situation.

In my role as a Workstream Leader, I am tasked with making decisions that align our shared goals and vision with the portfolio of bets. After much consideration, feedback from key whales and influencers, and a thorough analysis of our current financial situation, I have decided to greenlight our experiment for a narrowly scoped fee on Thorchain routes (streaming and swaps). This will be implemented as a two-month experiment, beginning [~Thurs 8-24] and concluding on [~10-28].

Why This Decision?{:ShiftEnter=>true}

User Feedback: We’ve received feedback from several high net worth users who have expressed their willingness to pay a fee for certain features, recognizing the value they receive in return. They don’t care about donations and here I quote: “if a fee is reasonable, say 30 bps, i don’t care, i care about trade executing and trade convenience. It’s when it breaks that I get frustrated. I’d happily pay for UX that is slick.”

Financial Sustainability: Our current opt-out donation model, while innovative, has posed numerous challenges in terms of revenue generation. This experiment seeks to explore alternative avenues of revenue while ensuring the continued delivery of high-quality services.

Data Collection: This experiment will not only provide invaluable data on user behavior and willingness to pay but will also give us a unique opportunity to compare two models side-by-side. When the decision was made to operate without fees, one of the arguments was that we’d never truly know the potential of a no-fee platform without data. That experiment concluded and now, by introducing this narrowly scoped fee as an experiment, we will have a clear counterfactual. We can compare the performance and user preference between the fee-based feature and the rest of our no-fee platform. Effectively comparing “apples to one apple.” This will be instrumental in making data-driven decisions moving forward.

Details of the Experiment:

Scope: The fee will only apply to Thorchain, I preferred scoping it more narrowly to just streaming swaps but it’s more logical to do all Thor routes to reduce user confusion ( the work is already done, all engineering needs is to turn on the flag and let ops test). All other parts of the app will continue to operate as they currently do including opt out donations on every other route.

Duration: This is a two-month experiment. Every two weeks at office hours we will check in on its performance. At its conclusion, we will review the data, gather feedback, and decide on the next steps. Should it start to catastrophically fail, we will assess and make necessary adjustments.

Transparency Commitment: I pledge to share the ongoing results of this experiment with the entire community on every product office hours call as part of our product goals tracker. Your feedback and insights will be crucial in determining our future direction. Nevertheless, it remains essential that we continue testing new ideas, gathering data, and learning as we go, ensuring our collective progress. Which is literally what the portfolio of bets and product goals were about.

Success criteria:

  • ● We gain revenue (trade success on any on Thor routes)

    ● We gain traffic (success preview preferred, but up in visits will indicate our success on marketing efforts)

    ● We gain market share quickly instead of delayed.

    We get feature requests from THOR users on canny.

  • Volume goes up 10% on thorchain routes.

Failure criteria:

● Weekly active visitors goes below 2k ( 50% reduction in traffic)

● WATs goes down beyond 30% (350 users → sub 200 users )

While we’re deeply engaged in a crucial governance conversation about the autonomy of Workstream Leaders, it’s evident there’s a tension between [SCP 92](https://snapshot.org/#/shapeshiftdao.eth/proposal/0x3529a9ab550387d1eedf34d0ba26b5c80ed1c04a74a3c407d9b06a6ea90325ab) & [SCP-128](https://snapshot.org/#/shapeshiftdao.eth/proposal/0x3382a4363b21fec3a992b1edb9c5caa78391e265121c248c6d81d305ef246f3e) and [the goals I clearly stated](https://forum.shapeshift.com/thread/search-44966) within the portfolio of bets. In these moments of ambiguity, it’s vital we don’t stall our momentum. The last time our community debated a similar topic regarding authority, the decision-making process spanned [a substantial four months](https://forum.shapeshift.com/search/pendo); given our current financial state and the pressing need to make strategic moves:

We do not have that luxury.

I appreciate the community trust placed in me as a Workstream Leader. I’m choosing to move forward with this experiment, fully understanding the dynamics at play. Should governance via this proposal here or any other proposal later conclude this as an overstep, I’m prepared to ask for forgiveness. I assure you that this decision, like all others, has been made with the best interests of the ShapeShift DAO and its users in mind. I will check back on this discussion every day as the proposal progresses, but I’m not interested in a tit-for-tat. Please feel free to share direct data driven feedback on what you continue to be failure or success criteria or if you think a longer timeline would be better.

Thank you for your understanding and continued support.

LFG

0xFBL

This will be implemented as a two-month experiment, beginning [~Thurs 8-24] and concluding on [~10-28].

This would be a blatant breach of the SCP-128 governance vote results, none of the proposals that followed it allow you to add mandatory fees, especially not to ThorChain Swaps (streaming or not), I’ll quote it again:

  1. 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

Please quote the proposal that changes this explicitly. “Monetization” does not imply mandatory fees, that’s the only trace of something vaguely related to this that I’ve found in recent proposals.

We do not have that luxury.

The runway does not end in 12 days as far as I know?! You can make a proposal and pass it in this minimum time, as it should be done if you have the voters’ support you claim to have. Doing otherwise would prove your disregard for our governance, your actual bosses, FOX Holders, which are not limited to “whales” that talk to you in non-public settings.

The process can be completed in 12 days as long as you push it forward after each phase ends as quickly as possible (3 days for Ideation, 5 for Ideation and 3 for the Final Vote).

Even if there is a Counter Proposal it wouldn’t add a delay as the previous similar debate sparked a change in governance that makes this process take the same time (the Counter Proposal must happen during the Incubation/Ideation phase of the original proposal and must follow the Ideation format to be a valid vote option in the Final Vote, provided the original proposal does pass Ideation).

Please reconsider this decision, your Workstream Leader position does not exempt you from following the actual governance process.

@seven7hwave and @0xFBL are bang on the money here, I don’t need to reiterate all their points.

We’re default-dead if we don’t change course, and shouldn’t die on the idealogical sword of a poorly defined public good. Grant funding has quantitatively done more harm than good at this point.

The success and failure criteria are clear, commendable, and falsifiable.

As stated in Engineering’s most recent proposal https://snapshot.org/#/shapeshiftdao.eth/proposal/0xdbd3051cd544def2e73c052596a44e66c519e9f8b94b827afeef385e1bd5d892 we will continue to “co-creating and executing sustainable data driven roadmap in conjunction with the Product Workstream.”

I support @0xFBL’s decisions in his elected authority as product workstream leader, and look forward to seeing the results of this monetization experiment.

@0xFBL and @seven7hwave are bang on the money here, I won’t reiterate their points.

We’re default dead if we don’t change the current strategy. We shouldn’t die on the idealogical sword of being a public good. Grant money has quantitatively done more harm than good.

The success and failure criteria of the experiment are clear, commendable, and falsifiable.

I support @0xFBL in his elected capacity as product workstream leader and look forward to the outcome of the monetization experiment.

As well and good you might think this is for the DAO it still does not make it OK to disregard a governance decision. If you want to reverse it, do it properly, with the FOX Holders support vote.

All you are doing right now, with this Pull Request https://github.com/shapeshift/web/pull/5149 to force your way/ideas in is telling FOX Holders that their votes do not matter.

People involved in this will have to answer to the community about this blatant disregard eventually.

EDIT: There is no ambiguity in the SCP-128 text about this, you need a new proposal to reverse this, this Incubation could be it, so by not waiting 10 days for a vote (this Incubation is 2 days old now, the poll is purely informative), you are effectively disregarding the SCP-128 vote results.

Taxing a small old/existing user-base will not solve any sustainability issues with ShapeShift’s business model.

Curious about the ‘influencers’, key ‘holders’ and ‘whales’ influencing product decisions without a formal vote. Who exactly is directing the “DAO” and its contributors? I could take one guess at who is behind those bps quotes.

Many valid points have been presented by 3 Workstream Leaders in this thread that I fully endorse and support. Bang on the money.

@Fireb0mb1 I feel like some of the language being used in your posts has been getting borderline flagrant, and should be noted that the ‘focus on delivering something the FOX holders voted on’ is purely subjective in readings of non-explicit sections of SCP-92, SCP-128, and SCP-145.

I do not view any of the actions that have currently taken place to be considered “Improper, not-OK, or outside the support of FOX holders (FOX holders did vote for 92 and 145 in more majority of FOX voters than in 128, and it could just as easily be read that 92 and 145 are proposals that support these actions.)

“3. 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.”

The above also reads as the proposal is for fees on ThorChain Swaps (not streaming swaps in the API) and that once another proposal passes via governance that gives product authority to add fees, fees can be added. SCP-145 qualifies as another proposal that fits that description, and SCP-92 is the precedent that Governance passed supporting Workstream leaders in their endeavors to perform their duties to the DAO as Workstream Leaders.

@willyfox , you mention the decentralization announcement where fees are brought up as an example of something that COULD (my emphasis) be voted on. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you draft that announcement with @jonisjon and @Beorn when they came to you about the idea of decentralizing the current ShapeShift Corp? To me it reads like those were suggestions of things the ShapeShift Corp’s early decentralized strategy team presented to motivate and fantasize what a future DAO could choose to do, if a created DAO existed and wanted to embark on those as Governance Proposals. I do not read the announcement as explicit in the DAO’s focus, desires, or intent, or by any means a Genesis document that DAO strategy or rules are derived from. As a Head of Decentralization, I hope you can see that Governance can and should always trump assumptions from outdated Centralized projections of rules.

I feel there is a lot of conflation of Public Good and Open Source going on currently when ShapeShift being a Public Good has never been the explicit subject of a governance proposal.

We did have a lot of work that went into the forum and many monthly meetings hosted by @joshuAF around Visions and Values of the DAO. This was the outcome of that DAO collaboration: https://forum.shapeshift.com/thread/search-40184{:ShiftEnter=>true}

{:ShiftEnter=>true}

I do not see a single mention of the DAO being a Public Good, or even a statement that can be interpreted as ShapeShift being or having desires to be a Public Good. We have a call scheduled today to dive in to this subject more specifically, I hope we can walk away from that with better DAO alignment on our explicit focuses and intentions in that space. I fully support all of @seven7hwave points made in regards to ShapeShift never having been a Public Good and it not being a focus or mandate of any Governance Proposal to date.

I feel like some of the language being used in your posts has been getting borderline flagrant,

I’m describing and quoting facts from that proposal, this decision taken by @0xFBL is in contradiction with the quote above. What is flagrant about this? And how is my reading subjective?

Do you want to do what all the other three Workstream Leaders you mention failed to do until now, provide a quote of any proposal that passed governance which explicitly overturns SCP-128’s text? I can’t find any.

(FOX holders did vote for 92 and 145 in more majority of FOX voters than in 128, and it could just as easily be read that 92 and 145 are proposals that support these actions.)

I do not think we are using ranked voting among propositions, turnouts vary a lot based on many factors, what’s relevant is if enough people voted and which proposition had the majority.

The above also reads as the proposal is for fees on ThorChain Swaps (not streaming swaps in the API)

I’m not sure if you’re being facetious or not here, but a streamed ThorChain Swap, is a “ThorChain Swap”, it’s multiple swaps delayed over time to go easy on liquidity pools on ThorChain.

and that once another proposal passes via governance that gives product authority to add fees, fees can be added. SCP-145 qualifies as another proposal that fits that description,

No mentions of fees in SCP-145. A mention of “Monetize Defi”, and no mention of overturning SCP-128. Such a drastic strategic change would deserve at least one sentence in the “new proposal”, that is if you’re not trying to post-rationalize this recent decision.

and SCP-92 is the precedent that Governance passed supporting Workstream leaders in their endeavors to perform their duties to the DAO as Workstream Leaders

I’m failing to see anything in SCP-92 giving the power to Workstream Leaders to overturn a vote.

I feel there is a lot of conflation of Public Good and Open Source going on currently when ShapeShift being a Public Good has never been the explicit subject of a governance proposal.

SCP-128 mentions it explicitly multiple times (the most important mentions, there are more):

Currently, ShapeShift’s application (https://app.shapeshift.com or https://shapeshiftdao.eth.limo/) is an open-source public good that does not add any additional fees onto protocols or services that it integrates.

[…]

  1. Maintain value prop of “free,” public good status, and meme-power

I’m also not seeing where I’ve been conflating the two, I don’t think I’ve said the words “open source” once in this discussion or suggested anything about it. But being open-source is certainly also a requirement to be a public good in the digital world in my opinion, if you are gated by a company’s license to consume/modify a public good, it’s not really a public good. But we’re moving away from the most pressing issue here.

I do not see a single mention of the DAO being a Public Good, or even a statement that can be interpreted as ShapeShift being or having desires to be a Public Good.

Please, re-read SCP-128, or at leas the quotes above. It still has not been explicitly reversed by another proposal, unless you can provide a citation requested above. Until then, the latest release v1.411.0 of app.shapeshift.com which has been developed by Product/Engineering and tested by Operations, and then deployed despite my attempts to ask to wait for a governance vote, is in breach of the explicit directives of SCP-128 which the FOX Holders voted for in majority.

@willyfox , you mention the decentralization announcement where fees are brought up as an example of something that COULD (my emphasis) be voted on. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you draft that announcement with @jonisjon and @Beorn when they came to you about the idea of decentralizing the current ShapeShift Corp?”

Yes I was definitely involved with drafting that announcement. It was available for all genesis foxes to give feedback on prior to posting, and Lindsay and Steve were also heavily involved in the final edits, which beorn and jonisjon signed off on.

“As a Head of Decentralization, I hope you can see that Governance can and should always trump assumptions from outdated Centralized projections of rules.”

I agree. I’ve spoken many times about how in ShapeShift’s case, the centralized team created the initial state of the DAO, and when the DAO launched control was transitioned to the community. Since then, the community has not given up the power to determine whether or not fees are added to ShapeShift’s interface. In fact, like @Fireb0mb1 has communicated very non-fragrantly, SCP-128 demonstrates that this power not only lies with the community, but the community voted against adding fees and ratified that a future proposal would be required in order to enable fees. Can you imagine if members of the core team at Uniswap, whose DAO launch announcement also mentions that the community has the authority on whether or not to add fees, made the decision to add fees without making a proposal to the community and after the community had explicitly voted against it? As Head of Decentralization, I feel it is my responsibility to stand up for the community of FOX Token holders and push back against flagrant violations of their consent such as this.

“I feel there is a lot of conflation of Public Good and Open Source going on currently when ShapeShift being a Public Good has never been the explicit subject of a governance proposal.”

I feel this, as well as other statements related to “validating or invalidating the public good hypothesis” are a misleading representation that makes it seem as if being a public good is the main mission as well as the main reason that the DAO has yet to be successful/profitable. I couldn’t disagree more. The mission is stated here: https://forum.shapeshift.com/thread/shapeshift-vision-mission-and-values-40184

While I believe that ShapeShift has the best chances at achieving its mission if it is a public good, it’s but one of multiple principles that I believe the ultimate interface to the decentralized universe will adhere to.

@TylerShapeShift

@willyfox , you mention the decentralization announcement where fees are brought up as an example of something that COULD (my emphasis) be voted on. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t you draft that announcement with @jonisjon and @Beorn when they came to you about the idea of decentralizing the current ShapeShift Corp?”

Yes I was definitely involved with drafting that announcement. It was available for all genesis foxes to give feedback on prior to posting, and Lindsay and Steve were also heavily involved in the final edits, which beorn and jonisjon signed off on.

“As a Head of Decentralization, I hope you can see that Governance can and should always trump assumptions from outdated Centralized projections of rules.”

I agree. I’ve spoken many times about how in ShapeShift’s case, the centralized team created the initial state of the DAO, and when the DAO launched control was transitioned to the community. Since then, the community has not given up the power to determine whether or not fees are added to ShapeShift’s interface. In fact, like @Fireb0mb1 has communicated very non-fragrantly, SCP-128 demonstrates that this power not only lies with the community, but the community voted against adding fees and ratified that a future proposal would be required in order to enable fees. Can you imagine if members of the core team at Uniswap, whose DAO launch announcement also mentions that the community has the authority on whether or not to add fees, made the decision to add fees without making a proposal to the community and after the community had explicitly voted against it? As Head of Decentralization, I feel it is my responsibility to stand up for the community of FOX Token holders and push back against flagrant violations of their consent such as this.

“I feel there is a lot of conflation of Public Good and Open Source going on currently when ShapeShift being a Public Good has never been the explicit subject of a governance proposal.”

I feel this, as well as other statements related to “validating or invalidating the public good hypothesis” are a misleading representation that makes it seem as if being a public good is the main mission as well as the main reason that the DAO has yet to be successful/profitable. I couldn’t disagree more. The mission is stated here: https://forum.shapeshift.com/thread/shapeshift-vision-mission-and-values-40184

While I believe that ShapeShift has the best chances at achieving its mission if it is a public good, it’s but one of multiple principles that I believe the ultimate interface to the decentralized universe will adhere to.

Without reaction from @0xFBL , I’ve made this Pull Request to revert the mandatory fees pending a decision from this potential new proposal. I hope it goes to Ideation as fast as possible so we can determine if FOX Holders have actually changed their mind which they have made clear in SCP-128.

I hope the Workstream Leaders involved can respect the established process and pause this test temporarily by merging this Pull Request, at least until this serious strategic change for the DAO is confirmed or denied by the FOX Holders.