Hello ShapeShift DAO it is that time again and the race to the bottom is still in full effect. With WorkStream renewals starting, who will be left standing as contributors?
Given that “Fear” is a common motivator and many make decisions based on emotions, this is a frequent pitfall of "leaders". Compound this in an environment where the bait has been taken and you get a “feeding frenzy” of, I follow suit or I am a target. This can become overwhelming without experience, the confidence of value, ability or, misinterpretation of compensation. Once this cycle is established on a larger scale it becomes harder to revert because fear grows and now it is a me VS them mentality.
I am sorry to say but the DAO is very ripe for this, yes we are in a “BEAR market”, yes we are not leveraged safely with treasury stable coins, diversified with different treasury assets, don't generate enough income or inflows of assets, or positioned with a large user base that we can rely on, and yes fear is very present both privately and publicly within the DAO.
^^^^^^ Realizable Problems^^^^^^^
You should fear for the future but placing that above logic in determinations and believing that you can look at others as expendable pieces to the larger puzzle is just going to leave you with an incomplete puzzle that becomes harder to solve.
Logic would dictate that there's always room for efficiencies and budgets do get bloat, especially new ventures (the DAO) and during times of prosperity (BULL market), but as I have always stated actions should be taken logically and adapted to address fluid situations, and when possible protection of valuable assets. A large-scale removal of any such assets without a clear determined and realizable goal is a very short term and can lead to the compounding of future problems.
Ok so here comes the we have limited runway and we need to act now; a powerful narrative that even in its statement conjures the sentiment of fear. So I will say that I agree that a strategy/ course of action is needed or I would never have gone to the DAO WOW, the question isn’t if we need to do something, it is do we want to do it together or as individuals. The public narrative at the DAO WOW was we had the group to do it together, in reality we are still looking to pick each other off in an effort to last the longest and impress by racing to the bottom for the perception of making the “hard” decisions.
And let me state that the narrative of runway is now a common CONVENIENCE, the limitation of stable coins is just that; A form of a singular asset that has a few desired effects
- It makes it easier to convert to living fiat for compensation
- It doesn’t directly impact the value of FOX on the open market
- The optics of the strength of the DAO to not use the token that it has the most of in its treasury.
One could very well argue that fear and loss of capability could be almost as dangerous or have more undesired effects. The fact that they don't always present immediately doesn't discount the outcomes.
I would say that if any organization was serious about survival then utilization of assets to accomplish this comes in many forms not just the removal of personnel (one form of an organizational asset). Would it hurt if the value of fox is depreciated further, yes. Can we truly control that with just our individual treasury and try to predict the personal needs and financial determinations/perception of all the holders in summation in volatile markets? Very doubtful. I would say that beyond that singular focus we have glaring additional concerns that will lend to the end of this form of the ShapeShift organization.
- The confidence of the of the community and the contributors willing to participate
- The limited resources of contributors that are willing to lend the ability, experience and time to work in uncertainty.
- This race to the bottom
- Hive mentality
I will say that this can very well continue to fall on deaf ears, and waved off as oh well it doesn’t affect me at this point so I can squeeze by; Maybe you can. I am not normally one to participate in this game but by all means that doesn’t even slightly mean that I can't. I have just chosen not to because I know the destructiveness that it ultimately causes.
To be honest, I don't really understand what you are trying to say with your post (what is the problem, suggested action?). Could you summarize the point you are trying to get across in two or three sentences? That would be helpful to me and probably others within the broader ShapeShift community.
I believe that the problem was stated in the title, suggestion action, I don't think a single action provides a solution, these are complex issues and takes diligence and thought. If it was a simple 2 or 3 sentences you wouldn't see so many crypto projects and companies going out of business. If you believe that cutting contributors is a viable and sustainable solution that is an option and it seems a common opinion, and best of luck maybe a combination of drastic cuts and small income streams can prolong long enough to salvage a few contributor roles. I posted to begin difficult conversation or at least allow for it within the community. If you want a solution I can provide you services specific to tasks of that magnitude and value but I doubt it would be within a forum post provided with limited scope and in a summation. Thank you for your post as it is here to help generate comments, thoughts and a safe space for community concern.
Thank you for your response. Maybe a clear problem statement would help to identify potential solutions to the issues you are raising (i.e. How to find new revenue streams so we don’t need to reduce the number of contributors to the DAO?). Or maybe not, I’ll leave that up to you since this is your forum post :-)
I was looking for a post that I provided the last time renewals were happening and this was first taking root, but with the transfer to this forum I am not finding it right now. Within that post I had a spreadsheet relevant to the time it was made with I don't know 7 or 8 various options that pertained to workstream budgetary options and retaining contributors. This topic didn't go into strategies for income or user generation or retention.
Ok heard a clear problem statement,
How to identify and prevent treasury and budgetary decisions/concerns being made out of emotional fear over logical determination and assessment.
And because I took the time to see that you stated that you are or were a management consultant,
"How to avoid the common management misnomer and mistake that you can simply cut your way into successful teams or fix the bottom line." or "What are the pitfalls of management ignoring capability and capacity for the quick gains of eliminating expense."
I will leave it for you to choose
My understanding is that @Neverwas is against further trimming of the human resources of the Workstreams which are trying to get renewed for the next 6 months term (Marketing, and Globalization). He does not see it as a long term solution as we are cutting bridges with valuable contributors and demoralizing the ones who are left (for now)... with as only "profit" a slightly longer DAO runway budget.
For context, what prompted this post is that critiques have asked these WS to reduce their planned budget or to increase their objectives. Considering the current bearish market conditions it seems pretty clear that the only valid option is the former, which leads to firing people eventually. For even more context, the past two terms have already been marked by drastically lower budgets and lead to people being fired/let go in both Workstreams (despite them completing the set goals to the best of their abilities as far as I know).
Obviously correct me if I'm wrong in this summary @Neverwas, I will gladly take these opinion as mine if you think something else actually.
EDIT: Seems like he gave a summary in the end, so don't mind me. That being said, I do share the concerns, so thanks for posting this.
I also think that this focus on the runway and short term profitability is counterproductive to the greater goals we try to achieve, it is a metric we must watch but if we cannot manage to make it on the already much shorter staff we have now, I doubt prolonging it by few months with even less personnel will change much.
Nonetheless and because I am positive on this, I do think the set of individuals we have had to select after the previous "trimmings" are a great fit to accomplish the common goals we have.
Thank you @Fireb0mb1
I am against the belief that one standard solution works for completely different teams and every DAO WorkStream. I was last term and I am currently against the priority that is placed on this as the only and best solution for ALL WorkStreams to be able move forward. I am against the seemly public acceptance and opinion that all WorkStream leaders should gladly sacrifice individuals vs efforts to build and sacrifice as a whole for the ability to work our way out of both short and long term problems as an organization, it would be wise to do so. And I am against from learned knowledge and experience standing by and watching as common management pitfalls are happening that have lasting and compounding consequences.
Take my posts with a grain of salt, but if you are curious, and with the transfer it might not work, go back and look at my dedicated posts and check see if I am full of shit or if I called it way before the realization set in. Oh and it will take some reading and thought to see between the lines. Up to this point I haven't had any desire to tell adults what or how to do.
I am for transitioning, building, and maintaining a DAO and what that can be for a global community on a larger scale, not a corporate iteration that mimics trendy ideas and follows the same limitations with a new shiny spin. I am against the vailed and telegraphed threat of votes that may come if someone doesn't follow the spoken desires of influential contributors and holders that keeps them from trying out of fear of a failed proposal, I am for trying and getting shot down that is governance let it experience due process.
I hope that clarifies things if anyone cared.
Moving conversation from Discord here per @Neverwas
I can not speak for anyone else, but I don't think that these conversation around runway are meant to be fearful. I think they are meant to provide an accurate picture of the DAOs finances to the community. I do understand why they could illicit a sense of fear, but I think that risk is worth the added transparency. There are many horror stories of startup founders who don't share anything about the financials of their company with their team and shut down on a dime without notice, I think the transparency is a better approach even if the uncertainty can lead to some people being fearful.
It is impossible for me to add any insights into a specific workstream leaders state of mind, but I can see many logical reasons for reducing budgets that aren't fear based given the current state of the DAO. I say this with no additional knowledge or understanding of the inner wokstream decisions other than what has been shared with the community, you may very well have much more information than I do.
I agree that disclosure and transparency were likely the initial and a positive intent. The focal point primarily on stables and the associated compensation doesn't provide an accurate picture of the totality of the DAO's finances to say so is in my eyes a large misnomer. I know that we can liken our DAO to a startup, but I wouldn't discount the previous existence, history, and legacy that it brought and continues to bring to the table. That said I would also add that Individuals and workstreams frequently do not operate under a startup or entrepreneurship mentality.
As the maintainer of the runway projections spreadsheet and someone who starts literally every Tokenomics Workstream call talking about runway, I can assure you that (at least from my own perspective) there is no intent to create fear. The primary goal is simply to present the DAO's finances in a transparent, fashion. In other words - these are the facts; here's where we stand.
Individual Workstream leaders are free to interpret these facts however they want, and make corresponding decisions around that analysis.
"The focal point primarily on stables and the associated compensation doesn't provide an accurate picture of the totality of the DAO's finances to say so is in my eyes a large misnomer."
I believe the DAOshboards are a complete and 100% accounting of the DAO's finances. @Neverwas Is there anything you think is missing, and is preventing us from presenting an accurate picture? I agree that we shouldn't focus on only stables. This is why the runway spreadsheet also has tabs taking FOX and the entire treasury into account. (Although as I discussed yesterday, I think it would be very risky to assume that we could get by relying solely on FOX).
Nothing here yet, be the first one to comment.