Evolving the Unicorn DAC Experiment
So, the idea is to get your thoughts first, before a more final proposal is suggested at the Community Meeting. First and foremost I want to say that I appreciate the entire Unicorn DAC initiative very much (more info on it here ) , I am just wondering how we can improve it, starting by mentioning some of the things I noticed myself + people told me over the past months. So here we go:
1/ Delay in payments:
Even if every unicorn uses the 450/600 DAI to fill other people's Milestones we are always behind because there are simply more Milestones out there than what we can cover. For some individuals this can run into months of being behind on reg reward payments, which can be very stressful. We now have 4-5 Unicorns delegating +/- 3000 DAI/week. If you count +/- half sending 150 to themselves every week, this leaves +/- 2500 DAI/week to fill 4900 DAI/week in Milestones (kay, bowen, dani, kris, michael, jeff, andre) + all the extras.
I understand the logic of 'feeling the scarcity' but to me it's just not the healthiest to work this way esp when you count arguments 2 & 3 on top of this one. People will not be extra motivated to help us get funding by not being able to pay their rent. Being able to have a roof above you and eat food are basic needs, and to me this scarcity tactic has no positive impact whatsoever.
I however understand that this is a reality. I am contributing to reducing this scarcity by 1) lowering my weekly hours until we get funding. And hope to help get this funding. I see the 700 DAI reg reward as a maximum but not a given. If I have put in fewer hours I will ask for less than the 700. The 150 I only request when I go above and beyond that week. 2) inviting everyone to always think during roles feedback if what I (and others) do contributes to our immediate goals. If not please say so.
2/ Not an improvement in 'just' delegations / possibly unfair system
I heard from Griff during last week's call that he's happy that he no longer has to decide who gets funds this week by himself, I get this. But do we actually 'decide' this now? Imagine I believe Dani is not really doing a good job right now or in general. If I don't delegate funds to her Milestone, after a while she will stop delegating funds to me as well (rightfully so). On top of this she will wonder if she's doing something 'wrong' but will not get any feedback or be motivated to start doing a better job. She will only receive less funds. And more stress. What works better for me to give feedback to people: the roles meeting (with roles linked to goals).
It creates so many layers of unfairness (to me). If I add it higher up in the list my Milestone will prob get filled quicker. I don't know eg Jorge personally, so I will probably skip his Milestone bcs I do know Dani/Kay etc. People who shout the loudest (often people like me) get a quicker payment or get bumped up the list, and this feels not very 'just' to me. I could literally get punished by the current system if I were an introvert.
3/ Unnecessary overhead
Every week 4-6 people open a sheet, check which Milestones are filled by clicking them open, if they're not they check if they have been filled in the previous 1-2 week(s) and do some copy pasting magic, after making the necessary calculations. (easily 3hrs/week in 'manpower')
Every 2 weeks (the new rule) lorelei gets to work, checks what has been filled per person and does min. 2, sometimes upto 5 delegations per person. (easily 4hrs/week in 'manpower')
To me this is a layer of 'corporate' overhead, of administration, that does not add any value (really, none) to what Giveth wants to bring to the world, nor does it teach us any new lessons. I think we got our lessons and it might be time to document this and move on to a new experiment.
De facto Griff will still decide by directly filling Milestones that he feels deserve some quicker funding. He's fully entitled to do so as a donor/Giver. So this is no criticism whatsoever, it just makes all the 'overhead' feel extra useless, because we're not really delegating in a decentralized way anyways.
If our main donor (griff) sticks to a maximum amount he wants to spend per week (which makes total sense!!!) until we get external funding we give delegation power to loie to spread that amount evenly over all Milestones that are up in the sheet during those two weeks to avoid any unnecessary overhead or unfair treatment.
So in the sheet you list all your Milestones that need to be funded + you add a simple yes/no for your weekly 150 Unicorn Milestone.
So example: if we now spend 3000 DAI/week (rough calculation) and we have 12 Milestones up, each Milestone gets 250 DAI/week. If there are eg 3 Unicorn Milestones this amount becomes 204 DAI/week. ((3000-450)/12). FYI: I'm also open to completely drop the 150 extra/week.
Note 1: At all times Griff can and is ofc allowed to decide - as a donor/Giver - to send funds to a Circle or to fill Milestones directly. The above proposal does not change this.
Note 2: I'm open to create a DAO on aragon as a new (small) gov experiment, but not to replace this system, to me it just feels like an extra layer of overhead on top of what we already have (more people will spend even more time on an already heavy admin process with no added value)