Formation of a Protocol Ownership Kick-Off Group

Can you expound on why you feel this way? I am not understanding how this post coming from the FTs would have this effect?

How do we set ourselves apart from the community? Why does that perception exist?

And why would would it be in our interest to act disproportionately in the interest of Set?

If you generally don’t believe this, why do you believe this now?

Your post was generally depressing for me personally, so would love to understand your POV better and what we as FTs need to do to regain your trust and confidence. Also, not really sure where that was lost.

I think we just saw this as an effort to push forward one of the most pressing issues that we face and let all of us collectively figure it out. Our motive is simply to get more ownership in each community member’s hands in the fairest way possible.

1 Like

Sure, this conversation is ongoing currently. And it’s the primary reason I have this dynamic top of mind now. It’s an ask to give the benefit of the doubt to the Full-time Contributors and accelerate governance power into their hands. As you see in the thread, I support it with a 6-month cliff (preferring a more linear cliff but concede that the difference isn’t worth significant engineering resources). Others do raise concerns about the relative fairness of the Full-time structure.

In the formation of the Autonomy Group, I also said the following:

So from my perspective there’s (1) a proposal from a group of authors who are seemingly only unified by their compensation structure within the Coop, (2) who (used to?) meet regularly with Set to make decisions on behalf of the Coop (something I raised as a concern in the Autonomy Group setup), (3) drawing conclusions from the yet-to-be-completed Autonomy Group’s process that they were elected by the community at large to complete, and (4) doing so with a group composition proposal that seems very structurally favorable to Set. All while there’s ongoing conversation about the relative fairness of that group’s compensation and governance power. That confluence undermines my trust that those concerns are taken seriously by the authors.

But I also genuinely could see how that might be coincidental. That perhaps it just isn’t something you guys see as an issue. And I’ll acknowledge my words were overly vague and slanderous. I regret that, but not the sentiment. Because it still strikes me as relatively tone-deaf.

3 Likes

I hear that. Cheers. The most direct feedback I have is:

  1. Let’s respect the Autonomy Group’s process. And the effort the community put into getting that group together. I want to hear what they have to say about how this should be tackled first. If this has been pulled together with that group’s blessing then great! But this does feel like it’s jumping that gun.

  2. I don’t think an investor in Set can be considered unbiased here. They may have the best intentions in the world, but it’s just a factual disqualifier from that characterization. If we think 1kx is right for the job IN SPITE of structural bias, then that’s a different story. But to call them unbiased is to distort that word’s meaning. I’d want to see more work here on who’s right for this job. And happy to take that conversation offline.

Otherwise, I like the idea.

2 Likes

I think this unfair and just want to voice that the notion should be squashed. No one should feel the risk of being labelled as tone-deaf for putting forward a proposal that gives full power to the community to direct its mandate.

The whole reason this was proposal was brought about and formatted as such was because we take the concern seriously. We just felt like it was an important issue but the proposal gives full power to the community to direct its mandate.

It clearly states that 1kx is a recommendation due to their strong history of thinking and leadership around these topics, but that anyone is free to make another recommendation. We gave reasons why we think 1kx could be a good fit, but that is all that is - a recommendation. I just don’t really see how you read that and decided that FTs were trying to pull one over on the community in favor of Set. If you don’t like the 1kx recommendation then nominate another 3rd party. If you don’t want a FT contributor on the team, then don’t vote for a FT contributor to be on the team. The accusations that FTs were trying to stack this for Set are unfounded given how clear it is in the original post that this structure is a recommendation and will be molded as the community sees fit. As Simon said, the specifics of who are on the team are not that important - just whoever the community feels will do the best job at delivering. That was always our intention.

The reason that I am pushing back on this is because it is just plain false. The authors only motivation was providing a path whereby a team could be chosen that delivers the strongest results.

This is where the core discussion should be. Is this a mandate under the Autonomy Group? I think I am in agreement with the following sentiments:

It doesn’t appear that this specific initiative is within the Autonomy group’s mandate. Which is why we felt important to get a team working on it as soon as possible. I don’t think at all it is a disrespect of the Autonomy Group’s process.

Lastly, I really hope the accusations and concerns around the authors of this proposal can be dropped. The original post is clear that this is simply a call for the community to agree that we need a team focused on this problem, and it is up to the community to determine that team. And I hope it can be clear that the reason this was posted by the FTs was that we want to get more INDEX into every contributors hands so we have fairness, ownership, empowerment, and governance power. That is it. That was the motivation.

3 Likes

@jdcook there are three senior people within Index Coop voicing conflict of interest here. This go find an alternative approach might as well read Full Timers way or the highway.

Shall we kick off a search for a incredibly neutral entity, assuming this WG is even needed - I don’t think it is.

Concerns were raised in the Working Group lead chat. Full Timer’s chose not to respond and pushed this forum post to the forum. It is their choice. I was asked to let this go through quietly on the forum. With how @jdcook responded, I think we are going to see the class divide narrative gain strength and people will dig in to oppose this all the way.

I noticed no single Full Timer addressed the other forum thread around Year 2 and Year 3 Set Labs Vesting contract . What are your individual views ? However, there were multiple Full Timers voicing the need to pay forward their own governance rights. The silence was deafening on the Year 2 and Year 3 vesting contract topic and the voice was loud when it came to a governance influence pay day.

Full Timers receive something in the order of 90,000 (6ppl 0.15% each) if the 2 year vesting governance is paid forward and this forum post implies this is a block vote.
1kX has 100,000 votes.
1Kx and Full Timers become the swing voters in any election with voters at the margin determining the outcome.

It is probably not the intent, but game this forward and it looks like governance capture.

1 Like

This is laughable. The only 2 people from the entire community who commented specifically on the Year 2 and Year 3 Set Labs Vesting contract are @Metfanmike and @mel.eth. The silence is indeed deafening but from everyone. Don’t single out a group of people to fit your narrative and agenda.

My individual view is that the suggestion is warranted and should be considered & discussed. Just like any other suggestion that comes from the community. However, instead of everyone putting out their preferred solution to revise genesis distribution on the forum, it makes more sense to me to form a group tasked with figuring it out. Which is what this post is about.

A case can be made that this sits with the autonomy group. As I said above, I personally feel there’s been a meaningful scope creep and I provided my thinking on why we need a separate group to handle token distribution.

This is another funny one. No one is pushing anything forward without consensus. If we can’t agree on a third party or anything else regarding this proposal, it doesn’t go ahead. I apologise for asking for feedback, it apparently is viewed as an attempt at governance capture.

Struggling to follow your logic here. The proposal to allow FT to vote with unvested tokens was an attempt to increase governance power by the community, which has been raised as an issue. It was acknowledged in the post that it’s a small step and more needs to be done. The community provided their feedback on that post with two main comments being that cliff might be appropriate and that some community members were not supportive of the initiative at all, even with the cliff. At this point, we can either revise the proposal to include the cliff or table it completely.

I don’t see what in the above process is problematic. That’s how decentralised governance works. A proposal goes up, community comments, revisions are made or a proposal is tabled. Seeing nefarious intentions just because a proposal comes from a certain individual or a group of individuals is detrimental to our DAO. There’s no empathy in that approach, it’s not data-driven and it’s not long-term oriented. These are some of our guiding principles that, I hope, still represent the fundamental beliefs of this community and how we work together.

4 Likes

I said the proposal is tone-deaf. I stick by that. I could just as easily say I’ve now been “labelled as unfair” for voicing concerns about the full power of the community being funneled through a structurally biased third-party, Set Labs, and individuals who meet with Set Labs on a weekly basis in an opaque fashion. I say that without any comment on the individuals who fill those roles. They’re simply factual. I’m inclined to trust those individuals and give the benefit of the doubt, but the manner of this proposal and the reaction I’ve gotten for voicing that concerns erodes that trust. If there’s no place voicing that concern, why do we even have a forum?

One question, if answered, that would go a long way towards addressing this concern. Was this proposal discussed with or shown to (in draft form) anyone from Set or 1kx before it was posted?

Who asked this? Why?

1 Like

I am in support of this protocol ownership group. I agree with @fallow8, I do recommend it forms after the conclusions of the autonomy group. However, I do recommend that this group does more to communicate clearly about the process and clearly highlight the mandate to the community.

I believe there have been failures of the current autonomy group to do that, and those lessons should be learned and applied as this group is formed. I respect the job the group has done thus far however it is clear that there have been issues. In the report from the autonomy group I would expect a post mortem that highlights what these failures are, why they happened and what we can do to improve them as we move on to the next phase of this process.

Looking at conversations around autonomy, I think as a community addressing this problem we have not done the best job to build context around the issue, If a better job has been done around that I do not think we would be having these misalignment issues.

@Matthew_Graham I do not like this demonization of Full-Time contributors as I have absolutely no doubt this post was created with the right intentions to accelerate progress on a vital topic.

Protocol ownership was a major theme of the Set Autonomy discussions - and so I would have loved the Autonomy Group to be engaged earlier when drafting this proposal.

That being said, I remain strongly in favor of standing up a dedicated group to dig deep on Protocol Ownership.

My personal recommendation (cc @Matthew_Graham, @Etienne, @DarkForestCapital, @setoshi) is on the 25th of August, the Autonomy Group:

  • Shares our “Autonomy Roadmap” which lays out a plan for how we address key challenges faced by our organization.
  • Provide a proposal outlining the future scope and structure of the Autonomy Group.
  • Provide a recommendation for how to stand up a “Protocol Ownership Group (POG)” and define how the Autonomy Group will work with this POG.

The community can review our work, and will vote on whether to:

  • Dissolve the Autonomy group
  • Approve the revised scope and structure of the Autonomy Group (to be called “Index 2.0”)

There may be differences between what our Full Timers and the Autonomy Group thinks is the best way to proceed regarding standing up this Protocol Ownership Group.

If so the community can vote on whether to…

  • Progress with the formation of the Protocol Ownership Group as outlined by the Autonomy Council
  • Progress with the formation of the Protocol Ownership Group as outlined by the Full Timers on this post

This will give the community some clearly defined options - and provide a “vote of confidence” in the Autonomy Group based on their outputs up until 25th of August and outline of proposed next steps.

Please indicate your support for this approach?
  • I support
  • I do not support

0 voters

@Mringz, agreed that the Autonomy Group has failed to bring the community on the journey and has been too quick to jump to the solution. We have learnt that lesson, but we appreciate that our community may no longer feel this group represent their interests.

4 Likes

You did not get a reaction from me for voicing concerns broadly. Like, I don’t know how to make it more clear that concerns and discussions around the structure of this group were welcome and expected. You got a reaction because you said the authors “may be acting disproportionately in the interest of Set” and that we “set ourselves apart from the community” and I think both of those are false and I don’t have to just sit back and accept those nonfactual claims.

When I say full power of the community I am talking about the power you have to alter the structure so that if you feel this way then it won’t come about. And I am more than happy with that. It is as simple as what Verto said (below).

That is idea started while discussing with the Set contributors about brutal truths and hard problems the Coop is facing, but the FTs said that we did not feel we had the community trust or buy in to lead this effort, so we wanted to turn it over to the community. That is the origin story.

I don’t think any of the authors are pushing back on concerns of conflict of interest in the group structure that have been brought up. If that is how we all feel, then let’s change it! The “Full Timers way or the highway” is a complete misread on your part, because we don’t feel that way at all.

You are right that this went unanswered on the WG lead chat, but I didn’t answer because I had already answered you personally (see below). The way you are trying to spin this is just false.

This is not going to happen and none of the FTs are pushing for this to happen at this point - the community feedback was clear and this has been a dead conversation - no one is pushing it forward anymore. So to use it in a conspiracy theory that the FTs are trying to governance capture in combination with this proposal - that is just silly.

Any pushback I have given is to defend the intentions of the authors of this proposal, which are no where near what you are characterizing them to be. I would really just love to get off this conversation and focus on the actual merits of the proposal.

2 Likes

Going through these comments this morning - lots of good points and spirited discussion. However, there are some frustrating themes that we need to move beyond.

  1. Jumping to conclusions. This post is one day old, the conversation is just starting. We should be collaborating and finding solutions, not rushing to draw battle lines. At the end of the day this is a big enough discussion that we will likely need to bring in multiple third parties and have multiple groups working on different aspects.

  2. Assuming worst intent. Basically, every single person I have spoken to across essentially every organization (Set, DFP, Investors, Community) is aligned in the need to give more ownership to the contributors who are building this DAO. Everyone has different ideas on how best to implement this and no-one has the final solution. Assuming that everyone is operating exclusively to maximize their personal economic utility is short-sighted and ignores the fundamental reality that we are all in this together. Everyone’s stake no matter how big or small is worthless if we cannot work together and assume the best intent.

  3. Not working to find solutions. Not a single person in the Coop has made a proposal without that proposal being significantly improved through community feedback. We are all trying to solve these problems together.

Finally - we need to seriously refocus on Servant leadership here. Protocol ownership is for everyone, we need to be working hard to ensure that every single Copper, Bronze, and Silver Owl has a road to meaningful protocol ownership. This is bigger than individuals. People are relying on this protocol to provide for their families and future. We owe it to everyone to solve these problems.

Negative attacks, threats to escalate, or degradation of this debate brings EVERYONE further away from the end goal.

5 Likes

Hi All,

Earlier today I reached out to a fellow Aussie to help kick start our outreach efforts to find an independent mediator. I can not thank @sassal enough for providing perspective and providing context around this very topic. Looking past the emotions, let’s come together and broaden our reach to find a truly independent mediator.

Perhaps VCs are the wrong direction. What about someone who likes cultivating the right community dynamic. In my eyes the 1Kx idea is to contentious and will derail this exercise. So to me 1Kx as a valid option is no longer on the table.

We can start with a blank sheet of paper, draft a new ownership structure and figure out how we can get there.

I’d love to see someone like 0xMaki or Stani come in and help out.

Listen from the 7 min to 20 min sections.
Thank you again @sassal :slight_smile:

3 Likes

Sharing this publicly because this approach is abhorrent, toxic and goes against every single principle of our community. Trying to push someone out of the DAO because they disagree with your opinion is a new low @Matthew_Graham.

1 Like

Yes I sent that msg and regretted it ever since. I deleted it soon there after and wish I never sent it. I sincerely apologies. I thought I managed to deleted it before it was read, clearly I didn’t. Above all else I am sorry it doesn’t reflect my values.

To give context, it was made clear you are planning/considering leaving Index Coop as soon as the vested tokens come available and that was a while back now. Given we are clashing on the forum, I thought you may be even closer to leaving.

I am thinking about whether this process is the correct process at all. Instead of electing a council of people to create this roadmap. Can we not host a collaborative workshop that is open to anyone to attend and provide an opinion, anyone can be actively involved in shaping the future of this DAO. Just a suggestion, but I am wondering can we attempt to approach this process in a completely different way altogether?

It might solve the alignment issues we saw with the first autonomy group. Feedback is most welcomed. Maybe we need to think about this differently.

3 Likes

Prior to further comment or debate on this thread, we need to collectively re-affirm our principles and values.

A good starting point for getting this conversation back on track is if everyone involved re-affirms their commitment to our Guiding Principles and Code of Conduct.

While we are still working on getting something formal in place - a good gesture would be to comment on Guiding Principles and Code of Conduct and affirm your personal commitment to upholding our community standards.

6 Likes

I had a lot of follow-up with JD on Discord here and think a lot of where we differed was that I had concerns about the optics and he has an absolute belief in the constructive intent of the authors. I’m sold on that and that point should have been a footnote but it got a lot of airtime due to it being a bit sensational and targeted to the point of feeling personal. I regret if that contributed to escalation in the thread, but stand by my constructive input here: Formation of a Protocol Ownership Kick-Off Group - #13 by fallow8

12 Likes

Just want to express my agreement with this. Appreciate @fallow8 for being a great steward of the community, and I think our debate was mostly fueled by the passion we both have for the DAO and the community.

6 Likes

Well played @fallow8 and @jdcook. That’s how these things should be discussed and handled!

I am open to the autonomy group doing this work or this new proposed WG handling it - as long as it is handled and at the right time. I’ll let the community’s votes decide. For me, personally, right time = next few months. Not having thrashed this around by the end of the year would be a failure (an outcome I don’t think we’ll experience).

I appreciate @jdcook and the FTs pushing this forward, and although I am appreciative of @fallow8’s points, I take their motives as they are described. Let’s do this!

I’m so glad this core, core topic is getting more and more focus - it’s festered for a while building up to this.

Thank you

2 Likes