Thanks for sharing your perspectives @asteeber and @shawntabrizi.
I’m going to suggest that before we change these parameters, we also discuss a little more what we hope to achieve if we are ultimately to evolve this technology to become more humane, not more technocratic.
Why I love Adam’s post is that it shows off the complexity of his personality - it is analytical, critical and emotional - and underpinning it all, are his values.
@shawntabrizi you bring a different, but no less important perspective - but what is front of mind to you, is not necessarily what is front of mind to others - as has been noted elsewhere:
We all see the world through different eyes, interpret data points differently and communicate our intentions in different languages - english, spanish, rust…
This is true of every one of the 1000+ members of this forum. Collectively we are way smarter than we are individually, but it is very very hard to translate between these perspectives, without getting into arguments.
Why perspective matters to parameter changes
@asteeber you have experienced a wide range of emotions when it comes to treasury funding. You have lived the highs and endured the lows - the stress, the anxiety and the unfeeling nature of the overlords.
@shawntabrizi you have never (afaik) proposed a treasury spend, nor sustained your work by requesting funds from a collective pot, nor endured the gauntlet of this process. Until you do you cannot understand what it is like to be a community member in this context. This is not a criticism, this is an observation - and it is one that is true for all of Parity/W3F.
I have sustained my work entirely through treasury funding and my own funds for the last 3 years, helping many others do the same. This process has allowed me to see first hand how different people - both proposers and voters interpret parameters, mechanisms, language and process differently.
Suggestions
Financial models are are always wrong - the longer out we plan, the more wrong they will be.
Ultimately these models tell us what the future looks like, if nothing were to change.
For example, we are structuring a deal with external financiers, that would enable the treasury and collective to become far more potent, thus extending spending powers well into the future.
Models are useful for getting people to think about bigger pictures - to assess what matters and to allow groups to plan for the future in an educated and importantly an iterative way.
-
Suggestion 1: Adam, or others to create monthly treasury forecasts. This could easily turned into a programmatic analysis to be surfaced through a UI such as Polkassembly / Subsquare. @Jas @wliyongfeng. We are adding this to our work developing a Discourse <> Substrate <> Wordpress integration, whose aim is to better unify data, analytics, media, discussion, proposals and on/off chain triggers and performance measures within a unified UX/UI.
-
Suggestion 2: We collectively outline what support looks like for talent through the full cycle of innovation and create language within the parameters and UX/UI that better educates proposers and voters as to the type of funding they are requesting and what stage they are in a bigger process…
Small changes can make a big difference to the feeling of contributing to the collective.
Here are the current language of parameters:
| Track Name | Max Deciding | Max Spend | Decision Period | Min Approval to Confirm | Timeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Small Budget | 10 | 100 KSM | 14 days | 50% | 28 Days |
| Big Budget | 2 | 2,500 KSM | 14 days | 66% | 28 Days |
| Treasurer | 1 | No Limit | 28 days | 66% | 7 Days |
Here is how we could make the parameters more humane - not this is not just about changing numbers, but about changing labels and also considering the implications on how we communicate this process.
| Phase | Queue | Max spend | Decision Period | Approval required | Timeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Research | 10 | 100 KSM | 7 days | 20% | 28 Days |
| Proof of concept | 2 | 2,500 KSM | 14 days | 40% | 28 Days |
| Product | 1 | No Limit | 28 days | 60% | 7 Days |
Currently tracks condenses a lot of nuance into a single technical term - but we must be clear that different tracks correlate with different areas of governance. There is nuance.
If we see spendng tracks as phases in an innovation process we can open up more interesting design space when we consider adjustments to things like the burn (which is really a Root origin track) and see this as an example of another spendable origin whose consistent ‘drip fed’ funding is useful in a different phase.
| Phase | Origin | Queue | Max spend | Decision Period | Approval required | Timeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept research | Treasury | 10 | 100 KSM | 7 days | 10% | 28 Days |
| Applied Research | Treasury | 100 | 100 KSM | 7 days | 20% | 28 Days |
| Proof of concept | Treasury | 2 | 2,500 KSM | 14 days | 30% | 28 Days |
| Product | Treasury | 10 | No Limit | 28 days | 51% | 7 Days |
| Base salary | Burn | 5 | 500 KSM | 7 days | 51% | 28 Days |
| Mid salary | Root | 3 | 1000 KSM | 7 days | 51% | 28 Days |
| Top salary | Root | 1 | 1500 KSM | 7 days | 51% | 28 Days |
| Bonus | Root | 1 | No limit | 7 days | Adoption based | 28 Days |
Once we have USDT spendable from treasury accounts we can evolve this further, giving people the option of requesting either KSM with some vesting parameters or liquid USDT.
Under certain conditions such as an ‘on-chain metric based’ bonuses, this KSM can be liquid.
| Phase | Origin | Detail | Queue | Max spend | Decision Period | Approval required | Timeout |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept research | Treasury Account A | liquid USDT or vesting KSM | 100 | 100 KSM | 7 days | 10% | 28 Days |
| Applied Research | Treasury Account B | liquid USDT or vesting KSM | 25 | 5000 USDT | 7 days | 20% | 28 Days |
| Proof of concept | Treasury Account B | liquid USDT or vesting KSM | 5 | 50000 USDT | 14 days | 30% | 28 Days |
| Product | Treasury Account C | liquid USDT or vesting KSM | 3 | 200000 USDT | 28 days | 51% | 7 Days |
| Direction | Treasury Account D | liquid USDT or vesting KSM | 1 | 1000000 USDT | 28 days | 60% | 7 Days |
| Base salary | Burn | Liquid KSM | 5 | 500 KSM | 28 days | 51% | 28 Days |
| Mid salary | Root | Liquid KSM | 3 | 1000 KSM | 28 days | 51% | 28 Days |
| Top salary | Root | Liquid KSM | 1 | 1500 KSM | 28 days | 51% | 28 Days |
| Bonus | Root | Liquid KSM | 1 | No limit | 7 days | On-chain metric based | 28 Days |
Summary
We are moving in the right direction, but we need to as a collective think more holistically about the whole innovation and support process, rather than just addressing symptoms with deeper underlying faults.
I’ve begun to lay out some of this rationale here in this post Structuring support across a full innovation cycle
Current arguments within ecosystems focus attention on large ‘public good’ treasuries. Whilst influential, these entities are just one component in what can be understood as a phased innovation process that should be structured through the full life cycle of R&D, productisation and go to market, with motivations, oversight, rewards and ROI contingent on the phase and the entity involved.