[SCP-203] - DAO Retreat 2026 Reimbursement and flight stipend

Proposal Discussion
1

Summary

This proposal seeks reimbursement of $27,330 in USDC for the two payments (one made on 10/25 by @hpayne, one yet to be made closer to the date of the retreat) to reserve the house for the ShapeShift DAO 2026 retreat, as well as a stipend of $8,000 USDC to be sent to each workstreams’ colony fund to assist in further reimbursements for contributor’s flights.

Motivation

The DAO has a yearly tradition of meeting in person for a retreat that allows us to perform workshops, problem solve, attend group experiences, and bond together in person. These retreats have been very effective in allowing the DAO to collaborate in person aligning us while also building culture via shared experiences together in meat space annually.

In moving away from reliance on the foundation, the retreat this year will have to be funded and approved by the DAO rather than being subsidized by the foundation. Leadership has already decided on a central location in Hawaii and found a villa that can house our contributors for Jan 30 - Feb 3rd 2026.

In order to book the place while it is still available, the first payment of booking was done by Hpayne proactively before this proposal hit the forums. Hpayne has committed to fulfilling the second payment as well as long as the DAO is able to reimburse.

Adding the additional $8,000 USDC as a stipend for flights allows us to offer the retreat opportunity to a vast majority of the contributors at the DAO without them needing to pay out of pocket to fly to attend. This stipend equates to $500 USDC/contributor attending.

Specification:

Send $27,330 worth of USDC on eth to an address verified by Hpayne.
Send $8,000 worth of USDC to colony to be split between workstream leaders based on contributors attending to reimburse flights at $500 a contributor.

Benefits:

Reimburses a contributor for the out of pocket cost to the ShapeShift DAO 2026 retreat. Allows us to continue the tradition of the yearly DAO retreat. Allows us to open the retreat opportunity to more contributors than last year.

Risks and Considerations:

Will cost the DAO $35,330 USDC for a one time reimbursement and stipend.

For
For with Changes
Against

3 Likes
2

Now in ideation: https://snapshot.box/#/s:shapeshiftdao.eth/proposals

3

Hey,

I’m voting in favor of it but only on the condition that this is treated as an Ideation vote, but it’s not in the correct space for that. Title lacking a real SCP number should make that clear, but it still requires a Final Vote.

1 Like
4

oops. it also ended already

…ill repost it in ideation

1 Like
5

https://snapshot.org/#/s:ideation.shapeshiftdao.eth/proposal/0x415fa82e705ca28aeb00540f1890d42b15a982ff9e0a02bc82ccc7a99d6a5876 Ideation setup.

1 Like
6

Thanks (and sorry) to those that voted, was put in wrong place and time frame.

it’ll be announced in gov in a few minutes!

8

Slight mistake I deleted the post! The edit button is close to the delete.. I am reposting here.

I know that I haven’t added much lately, but I do check in from time to time. So in all honesty I am not completely aware of the DAO’s economic outlook or runway of the DAO assets at present time. Or if the DAO still pushing an austerity agenda as a priority. But at one time this was very present and prevalent as a major concern to the sustainability of the project.

So for someone out of the day to day loop a little strange to see this $35,000 price tag ask, not only because of the above stated recent hardships that I can recall, but also the present day state of economics and what many are going though in general (optics might look a little crass). So I would ask and hope discussion around the fact that; Is it the time to spend like this? Is this truly needed at this moment or state of things? Are the benefits of "meat” time that pronounced and demanding that this is a direct ROI that provides to the project and the community? Can this $$ be spent in different ways that directly benefit the DAO as a whole?

I can add examples of things if so desired, but I am really not confident in the true state of governance or sure how much real engagement the forum gets from those outside the core contributors team. And then is there a point to even discuss when frequently a few core contributors can and do easily determine a community vote.

Anyways it is great that it has been a "tradition” but as stated in the proposal it was helped and broadly offset through the foundation and it’s members in the past providing availability, capability, catering and more.

Forgive me for asking if it can be stated effectively that this is what the FOX token, ShapeShift products and deliverables need, that this is a large benefit to the whole, and this is what the DAO needs to function or make it better? I can get that it is it a nice have or benefit, but is it need or a want? Questions for circumstances and the fact that “funding” has directly changed.

Just thoughts that I hope are being discussed outside of any types of insulating echo chambers that can offer little in resistance to exterior thought or opinions. And I am sure people are able to answer more thoroughly in a response if so inclined as they would be involved in the day to day.

In any case hope all are well, and if this passes enjoy your paid Hawaiian "work-cation” and travel safe for all those traveling abroad as well internally.

As a note it would also would be nice to see an verifiable agenda, schedule of events / workshops…. things that the community can account for before the $ is voted and allotted for, so if they are even concerned and involved it could be a informed determination.

9

Time together in the flesh is important for maintaining high performing teams, a shared sense of purpose, and improving our ability to work together.

The $35k has high ROI with respect to improving the likelihood that the $2m+ (USDC/FOX) OPEX the DAO spends remains productive and effective.

2 Likes
10

Hello ser,
First let me say congrats on the promotion to workstream leader, and hope that all is well with you and yours.
To the sentiment and the very general business statement that bonding and in-person meetings are healthy and a good tool for teams and community in general. Yes whole hearty I can concur and agree, in that this is a very broad and basic statement without much context or substance. I am speaking to more of the specific and particular terms of this DAO and the situation that a very basic and short public look provided.

A few points I would offer in reply

  1. First an experienced professional opinion In business terms having these types of work retreats can often be useful yes, and are used with larger diverse spread out teams. In terms of larger I am speaking of companies with teams having easily 2 to 3X multiples in numbers compared to the current DAO workstream teams (generally well managed smaller teams tend to be naturally closer tight knit and having greater shared purpose) This isn’t to say that it doesn’t happen in smaller organizations or teams but even if the case, the circumstances tend to be different. For one point, these use cases tend to be in times of surplus or forgive the term flush with cash or even assets making the outcomes less pronounced and projected. And I would offer that In a public setting the optics of a org with very little determined “runway” repeatedly using this management tactic with very small teams can have a different look.
  2. In looking at numbers that I took a moment to gather the workstream proposals that have passed for the budgets a majority of the teams that actually posted budget spreadsheets (that I could reference) had included discretionary and or travel funds, your own team included $10,000 for a six month term. And in adding up all of the stated teams discretionary / travel budget lines as listed it totals as I saw it $25,000 from current passed workstream proposals, one could assume and additional $10k for your team if continued for another 6 months beyond the current renewal for an annual of $20k if kept the same and pushing this line item for all posted budgets to a total of $35k for the year a coincidence I felt was ironic. So a posed question, why are these requested and approved funds not being used for this purpose or have they been allotted already and I could have missed it?
  3. Lastly a general statement I get the desired benefits, as stated and other wise. But at this point is it fair to question the actual tangible benefits of the past (which had major help from the foundation) and present ask of community vs an idea of “tradition” as being more in line of a benefit (perk) vs a benefit to the DAO.
11

I will add this separately as it doesn’t relate to any one particular workstream, but more of a observation after a little research. The number of 2m+ was offered as a basis of value and spend to show how insignificant $35k is in the larger picture and ROI. In a very fast catchup browse from posted budgets and the DAO treasury the actual annual posted workstream spend is closer to $3.5M so if that is what you are deriving value from it is about 1% of the greater annual budget but I am not making that statement and I don’t see that as a great POV that the DAO should be using to justify any spend, but I do understand that precedent has been set and as I stated then it was a slippery and dangerous slope.

In looking at the treasury it has $1,366,459 in stables with a continuing (more on this below) outflow of $3.5M vs the stated $2M with either number substituted and adding the stated goal of tokenomics of being able to raise monthly income of the DAO to $100k (I am not aware what the current actual number is atm). But at 100k inflow not taking into account of the amounts already paid out to workstreams who for some budgets passed a while ago and are coming up for renewals. A shortfall of ˜$-143k would be on the books and that is using the $2M number stated which isn’t itself insignificant, when using the real budgeted number from proposals of $3.5M the number is -$913k. I know that the DAO as had the foundation “bail out” or float funds in the past when asked, is this an assumption of possible reprieve the core members might be anticipating in growing this negative balance?

I will state this again that I understand that percentages of budgets may and have already been withdrawn from the treasury for workstreams that have been operating in their annual terms and are in the last quarters so the outlook can seem better and that isn’t reflected in my stated numbers. But it can be said that the treasury in good faith should work to have the funds or the means when the workstream renewals come up and the proposals and budgetary asks are offered to the community for good faith voting. Now will that or does that matter or even happen is a different conversation.
I gladly will adapt my numbers with additional information like the budgets that are already withdrawn from the treasury balance or impacts of the actual monthly incomes if I find them.

But to continue in the lines of above stated scenario and using a not to long ago governance action, let me provide an example of a previous proposal that was to fund a website rework and refresh. This was submitted for “insignificant” 2% of total funding and was shot down. I am not stating that I know the details of why (as I don’t), but one plausible possibility given could certainly have been for budgetary concerns. One might ask, if it was out of similar concern for the “runway” what is different here with this ask?

From my point of view as an outside observer, one can draw some clear and defined differences. It could be for example that the web proposal directly was to benefit the “general public” as a whole, and “hopefully” channel an increase of people to the service and product among plausible other objectives, vs the “retreat” that directly benefits the core contributors who will in-turn “hopefully” bring about additional productivity, effectiveness and positive outcomes from a in-person gathering. Both similarly based on a shared promise or hope of better future outcomes. It could also be added meaningful or not, that many who have participated and benefited in this practice of an annual “DAO” retreat for multiple years also have the greatest motivation and means to vote proposals in and stand to directly benefit. Sorry for the web proposal example but I didn’t see many other posted proposals that didn’t relate directly to core contributors, besides a few partnerships that can also have direct paid incentives for participating in.

Also side note, I do understand that the main, likely, primary viewers, and participants of the forum are core contributors so if you don’t know of me writing is fun! and I love a challenge! not that this is a challenge in that regard. I don’t expect much or even any support

12

So I am not sure that further discussion here on the forum about this proposal will take place, but I will offer appreciation to @Apotheosis for sharing his thoughts. If the concern is not wanting to discuss my points previously shared. Maybe providing additional content and context for the ask? It is a proposal in theory for a larger community beyond the core contributors and not an afterthought for reimbursement on proactive actions right?

The ask is for $35k as the proposal reads, out of that 8k is for airfares, and it is stated that a first payment for how much (unknown)? Was already made by a contributor proactively and the ask is for $27,330 to be sent as reimbursement to a private wallet for a downpayment, but one can assume for a eventual total of what actually?
Also could this have been paid through a travel/accommodation service that takes payment in crypto and could have been paid directly by the DAO? Travala for example among others actually do this.
As for the payment itself can a breakdown be provided in the proposal?
Does this include just the accommodations (Airbnb house I saw maybe)?
What about Transportation shuttling to and from the residence / airport? And any possible off site events?
Food and or catering for the duration?
Any group events and or “bonding” activities offsite that require reservations and payment, tours by land, air, or sea.

You might get the idea of the ask?

Also as for those traveling from abroad I see the up to $500 for flights does this account for tourism or business visa fees? Maybe not a thought atm or seen as big deal but at $215 currently and about to change to around $435 in the near future, that $500 stipend looks a little different.

I will leave it at that, not knowing that it even makes a difference with audience the forum gets and with the current state governance. In any case thanks to those who took the time to read and maybe think about it for a split second. Happy work-cation motivation is KEY

13

https://snapshot.box/#/s:shapeshiftdao.eth/proposal/0xeaf610fac5771f82881597636c58767f84a5c887530775be0263a64874d77ed7/discussion vote is up

1 Like