I’ve taken time to read more of the forums, and do a lot more thinking before replying in this thread. I’d like to propose a different approach to this workstream, and provide reasoning for doing so. I’d like to assume this is what this DAO process is all about - because I’ve found it stimulating, emotional, and difficult - which I can only hope strengthens the DAO as much as it has strengthened me.
This is going to be 2 parts - this first part of my reasoning, and the second is revising the current proposals for establishing and funding the M+G Workstream.
Lets get started.
This discussion is important. I’ve absorbed the spirited debate on this topic, and find myself empathizing with both sides. My current best thinking is that I’d like to see the M+G Workstream be exceptionally accessible for all DAO users, and with the DAO users doing most of the work. This allows for the M+G Workstream to demonstrate frugality and minimization of the risks expressed by in that thread.
If we are to look at any workstream’s economics comprehensively, it seems prudent to consider what I am calling the workstream’s “total sell pressure on FOX supply.” This is a new way of thinking about a common problem for any business: does the business receive a return on the investment it makes? Without digging too deep at this time, I think a general idea can be inferred:
The more salary that needs to be converted to fiat, the more total sell pressure on FOX that workstream will exert.
PLEASE NOTE This doesn’t mean that bigger salary = bad. I can see a valid argument for someone being paid exceptionally well, but not planning to convert any salary to fiat having a value of 0 in this metric.
How will the M+G Workstream attempt to mitigate this?
In two ways:
First, by reducing the amount of full time contributors in the workstream, and rely on the DAO community at large to be excited by bounties and participate more fully in the growth of ShapeShift DAO.
Second, by returning to the DAO at the end of every funding period, two items. 1) a report detailing where all funds were sent and spent. 2) all unused funding, not to be rolled over into the next funding period, so that the risk to the DAO of a budget ballooning is mitigated completely. There is now essentially no risk to funding the M+G Workstream, as any unused funds will be promptly returned.
If this workstream can break down objectives into discrete tasks, and source those with fair FOX bounty rewards - we distribute more FOX which increases the sense of ownership and voting power of the community. Also, it recognizes the “seed corn” drain mentioned in the linked thread above, and by spreading FOX around more, it obviously ends up in more hands. Some will need to convert to some or all of the received tokens to fiat (me included), but many will be content leaving it as crypto - maybe even LP’ing.
I believe this is one way to reduce that sell pressure metric. This may ultimately fail for many reasons, but it seems worth a test at least. I would love a forum thread on this topic alone, as one possible solution to the problem is to make accessible more Yield Farming programs with FOX, so those compensated can delay the liquidation of the asset by generating yield. More delay = less sell pressure, etc.
Feel differently? Create a thread, tag me, get the discussion started, and let me know.
- Marketing and Growth in the New DAO Environment
- When I first proposed the workstream, my intention was to continue the efforts of the previous centralized team. Gun to my head, I don’t really know why other than it seemed the right thing to do. This was a failure on my part to think differently in this new DAO world.
After spending far more time in my head, my thoughts have shifted. My opinion is that we should be focusing on these things:
Finding, creating, and chasing revenue opportunities for the DAO. This is most attainable by focusing on AIO and offering yield generating opportunities for our users. A revenue modelling project was completed at centralized ShapeShift which showed that potential revenues from this strategy are significant and sustainable. This really isn’t a task that M+G can accomplish on its own, but if the Product and Engineering workstreams can champion this approach, it would be a force multiplier for the M+G Workstream.
- Focus less on an “inbound marketing” growth strategy, and focus more on an activation growth strategy.
- Tell the story of the DAO, and how it is creating this or that. Showing that we have an active community to come join and contribute to.
- Focus highly on a Product-Led Growth model.
If we were to take an approach of opening up our systems to any and all wallets possible, and then provide yield generating opportunities for users, our growth strategy is clear. Users are attracted and easily retained by not asking them to switch wallets or import seed phrases, and we solve the fractured nature of yield farming by becoming essentially a SSO for web3 defi. All the while, we’re generating revenues for the DAO, and M+G is focused on activating users into those mutually beneficial relationships through email, social media, and community engagement. The user sees number go up, we see revenues go up, we all win.
Thus, I am going to rework the proposal that started this thread to reflect these new ideas, as well as rework the funding proposal. I’d love to see feedback on this thread and look for those updated ideas tomorrow.