SCP-205 DAO Org Adj Lean Measures for 2026

Proposal Discussion
1

Term: February 1, 2026 - Ongoing (with review triggers)

Summary

This proposal implements immediate cost-cutting measures to extend DAO runway through mid-2027 while maintaining core development capabilities. With current treasury projections showing only 7-8 months of runway at current spend levels, we must transition from growth mode to lean mode. This proposal chooses controlled, strategic downsizing over organizational collapse.

  • Current Monthly Spend: ~$189k USDC + $42k FOX (~$232k total)
  • Proposed Monthly Spend: ~$110k USDC + $21k FOX (~$131k total)
  • Savings: ~$101k/month (~44% reduction)

Motivation

The DAO faces a crisis similar to 2023. Current monthly expenditures of approximately $188-210k will exhaust stablecoin reserves by July 2026. Without bold action, we face complete depletion of stablecoins for expense operations.

Key Financial Realities:

  • Current stablecoin runway: ~7-8 months at present burn rate
  • No guaranteed revenue recovery timeline
  • Market conditions remain uncertain
  • Previous growth-oriented spending is no longer sustainable

This proposal establishes a unified approach to DAO survival, superseding individual workstream renewal proposals and creating a coordinated path to sustainability or orderly wind-down.

Abstract

The ShapeShift DAO has operated in growth mode with the expectation of increasing revenues. Current market conditions (FOX token at $0.012) and revenue trends (~$30k a month in total revenue) indicate this strategy is no longer viable. Rather than continuing current spending until complete USDC depletion, this proposal implements strategic restructuring that:

  1. Preserves Core Capabilities: Maintains engineering and essential operations
  2. Extends Runway Significantly: Adds 4-12 months depending on revenue recovery
  3. Creates Clear Milestones: Establishes maintenance mode triggers if targets arenā€™t met
  4. Enables Orderly Transition: Provides time for contributors to plan and for the DAO to achieve sustainability or execute controlled wind-down

Specifications

Immediate Team Restructuring (Effective February 1, 2026)

Marketing Workstream: Complete Sunset

  • Current: ~$41k USDC + $9k FOX (~$49k/month)
  • Proposed: $0 USDC
  • Rationale: Despite operational improvements, overall marketing results cannot justify ~$50k/month in spend. Core growth and revenue outcomes have lagged significantly, and the DAO can function without a dedicated marketing workstream by shifting to a scrappier, contributor-led approach.

Operations Workstream: Complete Sunset

  • Current: ~$17k USDC + $10k FOX (~$27k/month)
  • Proposed: $0 USDC
  • Rationale: Many operational responsibilities can be absorbed by existing workstreams, shared processes, and lightweight automation. Maintaining a standalone Ops workstream at current cost is not justified given runway constraints.

Moderation Workstream: FOX-Only Model

  • Prior: ~$6.25k USDC/month + $5.5k in FOX/month
  • New/Existing: $5k in FOX/month
  • Rationale: Keeps essential community and support moderation in place while removing USDC cost pressure.

Product Workstream: Proactive Cuts Plus Retainer

  • Prior: Full-time designer/frontend resources, PM, Data
  • New/Existing: 26% budget reduction (already implemented), maintaining a lean core product function focused on highest-impact roadmap items

Engineering Workstream: FOX Alignment

  • Current: $95k USDC + FOX stream
  • Proposed: $77k USDC (~20% reduction) + 3-month locked FOX of $18k
  • Structure: Engineering remains on a 5-day schedule, with approximately 4 days effectively compensated in USDC and ~1 day per week compensated in 3-month locked FOX.
  • Rationale: Aligns core engineering contributors with long-term FOX upside during a low-price period. Avoids an immediate 4-day week cut while still reducing USDC burn. Provides upside exposure and stronger alignment between contributors and FOX holders.

Tokenomics Workstream: 3-Day Schedule

  • Current: $7k USDC + $8.5k FOX
  • Proposed: $4.5k USDC + $6.5k FOX
  • Structure: ~3 days/week schedule focusing on treasury management, projections, revenue modeling, and maintenance-mode planning

Departing Contributor Severance (FOX-Locked)

  • Proposed: $1,000 equivalent in FOX per departing contributor, locked for 12 months
  • Rationale: Provides modest runway and recognition for affected contributors without increasing immediate USDC burn; long lock reduces immediate sell pressure and aligns with long-term FOX upside.

Post-Marketing Communications Approach

With the Marketing Workstream sunset, the DAO will shift to a simple, contributor-led communications model:

Platform Ownership

  • Assign clear individual ownership for major channels (e.g., Twitter/X, Reddit, LinkedIn, Discord announcements) to existing contributors across workstreams.

Scrappy, High-Leverage Focus

  • Emphasis on direct engagement, timely responses, and simple, consistent updates over complex automation or campaigns.

Coordination

  • Bi-weekly (or monthly) short ā€œmarketing/communicationsā€ sync to:
    • Share whatā€™s working on each platform
    • Coordinate upcoming launches/announcements
    • Adjust platform owners as needed

This approach reduces cost and complexity while ensuring core channels remain active and responsive.

Financial Projections

  • No additional revenue: Through November 2026 (+4 months)
  • $20k monthly revenue retained: Through January 2027 (+6 months)
  • Selling ETH LP or TWAP ($25k/mo) + $20k monthly revenue: Through September 2027 (+16 months)

Maintenance Mode Trigger

Condition: If revenue target (3-month average > $50k total) is not met in Q1 2027 (i.e., by the end of March 2027)

Automatic Transition to Minimal Maintenance Mode:

  • Basic operational costs only
  • Skeleton engineering coverage
  • Multisig coverage on-call or retainer basis
  • Essential security and infrastructure maintenance
  • Requires new proposal to be drafted by workstream leader(s) outlining specific maintenance-mode structure, budgets, and responsibilities

Implementation Timeline

  • January 15, 2026: Proposal submission and discussion
  • February 1, 2026: New budget structure takes effect
  • Ongoing: Monthly DFC reviews of progress toward sustainability and revenue generation
  • Q1 2027 (by March 31, 2027): Revenue target checkpoint for potential transition to maintenance mode

Benefits

:white_check_mark: Extended Runway: Adds 4-16 months of operational capacity depending on revenue
:white_check_mark: Preserved Core Team: Maintains engineering and product capabilities essential for product development
:white_check_mark: Clear Path Forward: Establishes concrete milestones and decision points, including a defined Q1 2027 maintenance-mode trigger
:white_check_mark: Contributor Planning Time: Provides affected contributors time to transition, including modest FOX-based severance
:white_check_mark: Unified Approach: Creates coordinated strategy rather than piecemeal cuts
:white_check_mark: Maintains Optionality: Keeps DAO operational long enough to achieve sustainability or execute orderly wind-down

Drawbacks

:warning: Reduced Capacity: Significantly diminished marketing and operational capabilities
:warning: Contributor Impact: Many contributors will lose positions; all contributors face reduced compensation
:warning: Growth Constraints: Limited ability to pursue new initiatives or expand operations
:warning: Morale Risk: Organizational downsizing may impact remaining contributor motivation
:warning: Market Timing: If market conditions improve rapidly, DAO may be under-resourced to capitalize

Rationale

This proposal chooses strategic downsizing over organizational entropy. The alternativeā€”continuing current spending until complete treasury depletion by July 2026ā€”leaves no options for contributors or FOX holders.

By implementing these measures now, we:

  1. Extend operational runway significantly
  2. Maintain ability to ship product and generate revenue
  3. Preserve core team knowledge and capabilities
  4. Create time for market recovery or strategic pivots
  5. Enable orderly transition if sustainability isnā€™t achieved

Supersedes

This proposal supersedes individual workstream renewal proposals and creates a unified approach to DAO survival. Specifically, this affects:

  • Marketing Workstream renewal
  • Operations Workstream renewal
  • All workstream budgets specified herein

Vote

:green_circle: For: Approve the DAO Organizational Adjustments for 2026 as specified above
:red_circle: Against: Reject the proposal, maintaining current spending levels
:yellow_circle: For with Changes: Approve with modifications (please specify in forum discussion)

2 Likes
2

I dont see this as enough.

Just to focus on one thing:

(oh nice quote)

Should be shared login, not individual ownership. (bus factor) this could be saying just ā€˜responsible partyā€™ but sometimes the words matter, best to say both things i think.

2 Likes
3

This is still 2 (or 5x) as much as the revā€™s.

All the ws proposals end this month (or next) so no real need to supercede any of them?

Thanks for getting this up!

1 Like
5

Thanks for your feedback.

This kind of retort is expected. And part of why I was so hesitant to post this. But sure, I will go ahead and provide a detailed breakdown and consider your adjustments. I am open to hearing from others in this forum if they agree with your assessment that the proposed Tokenomics spend is too high.

I am uncertain what you mean by your last 48 hours since you were paid for the month of January, but if you would like to rage quit, I canā€™t stop you.

Best,

Chris

6

This is correct.

this is to pre-empt the gaming of the system wherein each active governance member votes for each othersā€™ proposal for the sake of shoring up votes for their own proposal, and for no better reason than that.

Yes, you are welcome. It sucked to do.

7

Agreed. I elect you to lead the initiative

8

Thanks for putting this together. I agree with the core intent: we need immediate cost reductions to extend runway and avoid an uncontrolled unwind.

I also want to acknowledge that my first response came in too hot. I deleted it. That tone didnā€™t help the conversation, and thatā€™s on me.

1) Marketing transition note (scope + execution model, not ā€œbring the budget backā€)

I agree marketing spend should be reduced materially, and Iā€™m not arguing to keep the prior marketing budget. My concern is that the ā€œpost-marketing communicationsā€ section is directionally fine but operationally underspecifiedā€”especially around consistency, attribution, and execution discipline once the marketing workstream sunsets.

For context, Iā€™ve been writing SOPs for contributors who are staying on and building an automation-first comms system visible here: GitHub ā€“ hpayne1/ShapeShift-Auto-Marketing. Iā€™m happy to train others to run it, or run it myself and own comms end-to-end in a lean capacity if thatā€™s what the DAO prefers.

One additional context point: the marketing team has been operating in offboarding mode for the last ~2 weeksā€”documenting SOPs, transferring access, and standing up automation flows to keep comms running as linearly as possible after sunset. Our formal last day is effectively tomorrow, and anything we are doing beyond that date is goodwill to support continuity, not an ongoing obligation. Weā€™re doing it because we care about the brand and want to set the DAO up for success post-transition.

2) Yellow Jersey PR termination/cooldown obligation (wind-down clarity)

We should also account for a practical transition constraint: Yellow Jersey PR has a three-month termination/cooldown period. Regardless of whether we continue PR long-term, the proposal (or an implementation addendum) should explicitly acknowledge any obligations during that window and define what gets delivered so the wind-down is clean and predictable.

3) Performance marketing and the Hype Labs credit (needs a named owner)

If the DAO intends to use any performance marketing at allā€”even minimallyā€”someone needs to own it. Itā€™s not just ā€œpost contentā€; itā€™s spend pacing, creative iteration, tracking, and reporting.

Related: we currently have a $10,000 Hype Labs credit and they are under contract to run that spend. In my view we should use it, but it needs a single accountable owner, a lightweight measurement plan, and a clear definition of success. Iā€™m happy to kick this off and set it up so it can run without chaos.

4) Practical option: ultra-lean comms/automation retainer (FOX-only, if the DAO wants it)

If the goal is $0 USDC marketing spend, one pragmatic path is a small, clearly scoped FOX-only retainer to ensure the automation + comms system actually runs and someone is accountable.

For example, Iā€™d be comfortable with something like ~$2k FOX/month to run the comms/automation system, own rollouts end-to-end, manage the Hype Labs credit deployment (if used), and post periodic updates back to the DAO. This is optionalā€”just offering a minimal accountable operator model that protects continuity while we cut spend aggressively.

5) Tokenomics workstream (recommend further reduction + request task accounting)

I also recommend reducing Tokenomics further than the proposed 3 days/week.

Suggestion: Tokenomics Workstream ā€” 1 day/week

  • Proposed: $4k USDC + $0 FOX

  • Structure: 1 day/week focusing on treasury management, projections, revenue modeling, and maintenance-mode planning.

If 24 hours/week is necessary, Iā€™d like to see a transparent breakdown of what those hours go to (task-by-task), so FOX holders can evaluate necessity and expected outputs.

6) Where Iā€™m landing (vote intent)

Net: I support the direction and urgency of the proposal. Iā€™m currently For with Changes based on:

  1. tightening the post-marketing comms plan into a concrete operating model (owners + cadence + approvals + attribution),

  2. explicitly accounting for Yellow Jersey PR termination obligations so the wind-down is clean,

  3. assigning ownership for any performance spend and specifically the Hype Labs credit, and

  4. reducing tokenomics further unless a task breakdown justifies 3 days/week.

If useful, I can propose drop-in language for the comms section and a minimal ā€œlean comms operatorā€ scope thatā€™s measurable and easy to sunset if itā€™s not pulling its weight.

Best of luck,
Houston

1 Like
9

not sure how to ā€˜lead the initiative ā€˜ lol. just something we should always do. 2 (or more) owners on everything. those random busā€™s hunt each person!

10

ah, so its more of a conversation. not really a proposal?
ok that helps some.
but i think each proposal has ideas on how they are going to move forward, without one wsleader dictating how they do so. (and i would hope they would do it alot lower)

more fox. aiming for no usdc.

we need to build up some time.

ā€“ its been talked about for over a year. (actual year not just a few weeks)

about reducing under the rev. thats my focus.
put the BILLS as we must on usdc, and do fox, locking it as best we can

whats that called. cliff and ..vesting ?

We started there, i think we got off of it too early overall.

6m-12m of doing that, and we are ok
Vesting our stacks in defi and that.

keep ppl that want the dao to succeed.

11

This proposal feels like too much of an omnibus of a proposal to go forward as written. Regardless, I appreciate having this thread as a place to discuss the future budget issues openly in the forums and bring the conversation that has been happening in Leadership to the rest of the community and in a way that is public, transparent, and open.

There are myriad complex issues being tackled here. They have been conflated into a single, take-it-or-leave-it proposal, front running a nuanced community informed discussion on any of the line items considered critical or not by @profmaccarthyprofmaccarthyprofmaccarthyprofmaccarthy. To me, doing so has obscured the utility provided by the solution proposed. It does not solve the primary budgeting issue(s) motivating this proposal, and if this were to pass, our monthly spend would still vastly outweigh our monthly revenues. It is presented as the lesser evil to take rather than ā€˜organizational collapse,ā€™ a flawed dichotomy considering its lack of addressing the spending issue completely.

By combining budgets from previous unique and individual renewals into one proposal, I believe we would be introducing a regression in our goals and missions around decentralized governance and how we view and manage ourselves as a decentralized organization. A voter might agree that Marketing or Operations might need cuts compared to previous renewals, but disagree with the Tokenomics, Product or Engineering budgets. This proposal prevents them from voting on the merits of each individual decision. Itā€™s a strategy to get controversial cuts approved by bundling them with necessary ones.

Is there any reason as to why previous individual renewals should need to be combined here? Is there any reason as to why individual renewals based by community members that wish to become or remain contributors should not continue through the governance process that has been established and hardened by the proposals that have brought us here? I know @Hpayne and myself both have individual drafts for our own renewals coming up, we also have governance precedence for competing proposals aimed at the same focus, as well as the ability to vote no on proposals you disagree with. To me, following precedence by either putting up a competing proposal with a renewal you disagree with, or voting no on one you do not wish to see pass as written seems like a more appropriate way to handle how each individual workstream could continue to contribute here, rather than a ā€˜big beautiful billā€™ that doesnā€™t actually address the issue at hand.

I think some of the comments that have been made in this proposal and the discussions in this thread are presenting close minded views of how to creatively solve the problem that has existed since day one of DAO inception. This proposal feels dictatorial and non-collaborative. This is highlighted by the responses made by @Hpayne above. I look forward to seeing the proposal based on the work he and his team have been focusing on to optimize into what a minimal spend and more automated version of the DAOā€™s Marketing workstream can look like. In the rough drafts I saw of what I hope to still see hit the forums, I was very impressed by the ability to provide utility and function, while reducing labor costs exponentially by embracing automation. I personally think we are still some time away from automation completely replacing all labor, but it is something I applaud and hope to encourage embracing in renewals to challenge the previous norms of what can and should be spent going forward.

There seems to be a lot of pointing blame (in this post and in recent Leadership conversations) at other parties about who is not deserving of their previous USDC salary going forward. ā€œIā€™ll take a little less USDC, but if we want the DAO to survive, they donā€™t deserve any USDC.ā€ has been the spirit of conversations I have been witness to on multiple occasions from various leaders here pointing to other teams. To me, this presents binaries that are not helpful in understanding actual presented tasks, utilities, and needs to the DAO. This binary presents a lot of subjective reasoning motivated behind what an individual feels is essential in comparative reasoning, rather than addressing the actual issue at hand (which is reducing spend.) It has made collaboration here difficult in the last quarter as it is hard to remain selfless, altruistic, and morale based when the foundation of contributors salaries (and thus main reasons for being here) are challenged. It makes sense and feels all too human to have this situation now befall us (again) as the bear market cycles rinse and repeat.

In reading between the lines of the discussion I have come away with one major understanding, The fundamental truth is this: the DAO can no longer afford to pay fair market rates in USDC. Our compensation must shift to prioritize locked FOX and FOX over USDC, reserving stablecoins only for essential infrastructure costs. (ā€˜Essentialā€™ is also still very subjective here and should hopefully be temporary as we continue to creatively find ways to not only survive, but grow and succeed.)

There are many different comments and questions that I have about each of the individual workstreams that have been presented in this proposal and I would hope that the individual leaders of each workstream feels confident enough in their workstreams and austerity solutions to present proposals and follow the governance process individually.

This proposal as currently written unilaterally decides which workstreams live and die. This is not a DAO-led discussion; itā€™s a decree. The proposal explicitly states it ā€œsupersedes individual workstream renewal proposals,ā€ effectively silencing other leaders and preventing them from presenting their own lean plans. This is a tactic to centralize control under the guise of efficiency. The cuts are not made based on a holistic, data-driven analysis of ROI, but on a subjective assessment that conveniently protects a small sphere of influence.

The comment, ā€œthis kind of retort is expected. And part of why I was so hesitant to post this,ā€ feels like a manipulative tactic. It frames any legitimate criticism as a personal attack, deflects from the substance of the critique, and paints opposition as ungrateful or destructive. To me, shows a lack of genuine interest in collaborative problem-solving being presented by others.

If there are individual proposals that outline specific workstream renewals addressing the budget issues presented here without needing to combine cuts from other workstreams as the solution, I would love to see them, discuss them, and vote accordingly. If this goes up for voting as written, I will be voting against it in hopes of more specific individual proposals and more realistic budget solutions that have a much smaller USDC price tags associated with them than what is currently presented here.

1 Like
12

I do not understand what you are insinuating here, to me it feels like what you are projecting is precisely what has been proposed. Combining multiple workstreams together to shore up votes.

What gaming of the system is there when it has always been 1 FOX = 1 vote? It is still up to the FOX holder to vote for what they believe is in the best interest of the DAO. Pre-empting other proposals before you even know what they are or could be presenting certainly does suck.

1 Like
13

I have a lot of thoughts on this, and will be writing up a thoughtful response after I step away

the short.

If we are doing any sort of unified proposal, i think it needs to be on pay that people are taking and limit the amount of non-fox people are taking, but proposals for each workstream should likely still be passed.

Iā€™m voting no at this time until iā€™ve had time to reflect on the changes Iā€™d like to see made and then probably going to change the vote to w/ changes. Follow up to come.

2 Likes
14

A 12-month term is too long given current runway constraints. Decision points and direction checks need to happen quarterly. If thereā€™s no progress in three months, wind-down planning should begin. A year is too long to wait for course correction.

Under[SCP-92], workstream leaders already control their budgets and have authority to make these changes. If they support whatā€™s proposed here, they can already execute it. Iā€™m unclear why this needs a governance vote.

Five workstream renewals are happening in the next two months: Marketing (Feb 1), Product (Mar 1), Ops (Mar 1), Engineering (Apr 1), Tokenomics (Mar 1). This proposal targets two specific workstreams, but by the time it passes governance, one of them will have only three days left on its current term with no renewal proposal submitted yet.

What specifically requires a DAO vote here versus workstream-level decision-making? These work streams should still have to submit proposals for their renewals, and let the community decide in a case by case basis if the cuts that the work stream is deciding to make are enough.

Can we see a line item cut workstream by workstream budget reduction so we can get a preview as to what the renewals will look like?

3 Likes
15

Tyler, I appreciate your detailed response and understand your concerns about the omnibus structure. Let me address the core issues youā€™ve raised.

Youā€™re absolutely right that the DAO can no longer afford market rates in USDC - thatā€™s the fundamental crisis driving this proposal. Where we differ is on the urgency and approach needed to address it.

On the omnibus structure: Yes, this prevents granular voting on individual workstreams. Thatā€™s intentional. Our treasury analysis shows we have 7 months of runway at current spend. Individual renewal processes would take us past the point of financial viability. Weā€™ve tried the individual approach for two years while bleeding treasury - it hasnā€™t worked because each workstream optimizes for itself rather than organizational survival.

On governance precedent: Sometimes precedent must yield to financial reality. The Titanic had established procedures for dining service, but when it hit the iceberg, those procedures became irrelevant. Weā€™re not in normal times requiring normal processes.

On collaboration: I spent months in Leadership discussing these cuts. Every conversation devolved into ā€œcut them, not us.ā€ The collaborative approach failed because everyone has skin in the game. Sometimes leadership means making unpopular decisions when consensus isnā€™t possible.

On individual proposals: You and others are welcome to submit competing proposals. Thatā€™s how governance works. But those proposals must address the mathematical reality: we need to cut ~$100K in monthly spend or face organizational collapse by July. Any individual renewal that doesnā€™t acknowledge this constraint isnā€™t serious policy.

The ā€œlesser evilā€ framing misses the point. This isnā€™t about choosing between options - itā€™s about choosing between survival and death. If you have a better plan that cuts $100K monthly while maintaining organizational function, Iā€™ll enthusiastically support it.

But ā€œletā€™s have more discussionsā€ isnā€™t a plan when weā€™re months from insolvency.

1 Like
16

Tyler, youā€™re right to call out the contradiction in my framing. Let me be more direct about whatā€™s happening here.

Youā€™re correct that this omnibus approach is itself a form of vote bundling - Iā€™m combining necessary cuts with popular items to ensure passage. Thatā€™s exactly what Iā€™m doing, and I should own that rather than projecting it onto others.

On collaborative development: This proposal wasnā€™t developed unilaterally. Tim from Product and the Engineering team were central to determining what functionality is essential for organizational survival versus what can be eliminated. Their assessment - not just mine - is that marketing automation, operations overhead, and moderation donā€™t impact core platform functionality, while product direction and engineering execution remain critical.

The difference isnā€™t in the tactic, itā€™s in the motivation and timeline. Individual renewals allow each workstream to optimize for their own survival while collectively bankrupting the organization. The omnibus forces a holistic view of organizational survival over individual preferences - a view shaped by the teams responsible for actually building and shipping the platform.

On pre-empting other proposals: Fair criticism. I donā€™t know what you and H Pain are drafting. But I do know the mathematical constraints any viable proposal must work within - we need ~$100K in monthly cuts to avoid insolvency by July.

The real question isnā€™t about governance purity - itā€™s whether any collection of individual proposals can collectively solve our $100K monthly deficit while preserving what Product and Engineering have identified as essential functions. If this gets voted down, then sure - we proceed with normal governance season where everyone votes to renew everyone else because we all want our own positions renewed. But this omnibus exists to try to get ahead of that predictable dynamic where mutual back-scratching leads to collective organizational failure.

17

On 12-month terms: Youā€™re absolutely right. Given our 7-month runway, 12-month commitments are financially irresponsible. Quarterly reviews with explicit wind-down triggers make much more sense. I believe if weā€™re not hitting $50K monthly revenue by Q2, we should begin orderly shutdown rather than burning remaining treasury. However, others in product and engineering think that we need more time. @Apotheosis, thoughts?

On SCP-92 authority: Yes, workstream leaders do have authority to make these cuts unilaterally. But thereā€™s no rule saying new governance proposals canā€™t supersede existing arrangements - in fact, the governance process explicitly states thatā€™s how governance should work. Thatā€™s the entire point of having DAO votes that can override individual workstream decisions.

On renewal timing: Exactly why this needs to happen now. Marketing expires Feb 1st with no renewal submitted. Operations and Product expire March 1st. We canā€™t afford another renewal cycle where everyone votes to maintain current spending while hoping someone else takes the cuts.

On line-item specifics: Can you clarify what exactly youā€™re looking for here? Are you asking for current vs. proposed budgets by workstream, or something else? Want to make sure Iā€™m answering the right question.

The financial math remains the same regardless of structure - we need at least $100K in monthly reductions - but Iā€™m open to different approaches that achieve that goal while maintaining better governance practices. Looking forward to everyoneā€™s detailed thoughts

18

I look forward to seeing how this will work. Please submit it as a proposal

19

Hi Foxes.

As someone who was on the front lines during the prior austerity efforts, I know how hard these discussions can be. Reflecting back on that time, there was an underlying sense of urgency behind those deliberations because there was a shared understanding that "unless we do something drastically different than our current approach, weā€™re toast.ā€

That appears to be exactly the case now - perhaps even more-so than in the last bear market. So against that backdrop, big props to @ProfMcC for proposing a path forward. This path is not easy or fun, but this is one of those situations where drastic action is necessary.

Thereā€™s a LOT to fight for here. The DAO has come so far since the early days. Is it thriving at the moment? No. But its continued existence and community is a testament to its contributors. There are only a handful of other DAOs that survived the insanity, ups, and downs of crypto over the past several years - and this is one of them. You should all be super proud of that. And now the DAO has a chance to again prove its mettle by fighting through a rough period.

Of course mere survival isnā€™t enough. What I really like about this proposal is that it articulates a way to survive that allows strategies like the ones articulated by @0xFBL here to come to fruition; as FBL carefully and convincingly points, out thereā€™s a realistic intermediate-term path to success if the DAO can survive to fight another day.

It would suck if those plans never have a chance to be realized because the DAO started its austerity too late, or those measures were insufficient. What Prof has outlined here is a good way to make that happen.

The pain involved sucks. Getting a pay cut, or even losing entire teams, sucks. No doubt. Yet if the DAO continues on its current path, everyone loses - from contributors to token holders to passive community members to (last but certainly not least) the DAOā€™s loyal and awesome users. Conversely, fast adoption of austerity will get the DAO on a path to survival (and eventually future success). It would also send a very strong signal to the market that the community is serious about its finances, potentially contributing to relative strength in the price of the token - which of course also plays a major role in the DAOā€™s finances.

So Iā€™m a big and unambiguous ā€œyesā€ for this proposal.

At the same time it sounds like thereā€™s plenty of room for discussion at the margins to talk about how much to save via cutting back on USDC versus FOX or locked-FOX salaries. Those are some good discussions for the community (and especially the active contributors) to have; I donā€™t have enough insight on those smaller details to have an opinion. I imagine something can be hammered out with those marginal details that makes more contributors feel OK with the situation, while also getting the budget down rapidly.

What I do know is that the DAO needs to act aggressively, as soon as possible. So please, for the love of god, donā€™t spend endless weeks debating relatively small details. Donā€™t get bogged down in the small stuff. Focus on the big picture and the big, important numbers. Take drastic action as soon as you can; this is one of those cases where time is truly of the essence.

A brighter future awaits the DAO - I really believe that! - if it can successfully navigate another period of austerity. Weā€™ve done it before, and can do it again.

And thanks to everyone whoā€™s stuck around and pushed the DAO forward over the past few years (and to those who have joined in the meantime). You all kick ass.

Kent

2 Likes
20

The problem is. these cuts arent good enough.

Feels like the defense for this proposal, is that its helping the dao.

it is not.

my thinking is 30k roughly max usdc. (including the expenses)

fox for payouts. thats it. we need to fit in that space.

New proposals are being setup right now. the end of some of the things are this month and some are next month.

this proposal was totally unneeded.

From the meeting i was just in, the wsā€™s are still going to be doing their own renewal.

So why this setup at all.

2 Likes
21

On SCP-92 authority: Yes, workstream leaders do have authority to make these cuts unilaterally. But thereā€™s no rule saying new governance proposals canā€™t supersede existing arrangements - in fact, the governance process explicitly states thatā€™s how governance should work. Thatā€™s the entire point of having DAO votes that can override individual workstream decisions.

This doesnā€™t answer the point I was making. Workstream leaders have the authority to make these changes today. If time is of the essence as you claim, why havenā€™t these changes been implemented already across all of the proposed budgets?

On renewal timing: Exactly why this needs to happen now. Marketing expires Feb 1st with no renewal submitted. Operations and Product expire March 1st. We canā€™t afford another renewal cycle where everyone votes to maintain current spending while hoping someone else takes the cuts.

If workstream leaders have already agreed to the cuts as part of this proposal, thereā€™s no hoping or guessing involvedā€”they can implement the changes today per SCP-92. So if time is of the essence, why havenā€™t all of the proposed changes been implemented by the workstream leaders?

On line-item specifics: Can you clarify what exactly youā€™re looking for here? Are you asking for current vs. proposed budgets by workstream, or something else? Want to make sure Iā€™m answering the right question.

A detailed budget with line items, comparing the previous budget, and the new budget, the cuts that are being made top down. If this is a workstream omnibus, the community should be seeing how each workstream intends to be spending their newly granted budget each month as to hold each work stream leader accountable to their budget else this is giving them free reign with their spending for the next year.

Examples of previous budgets Engineering, Marketing, Product.

What KPIā€™s will each workstream be held to? Have they hit their KPIā€™s from their previous workstream proposals?

1 Like