Key Takeaways: Council V1 Retro

This post is a synthesis of points made in the ICC Retro. It is intended to be short (not comprehensive).

You can find the full recording here, the Jamboard here, and poll data here.

What went well:

  • Making full-time hires
  • Clear group identified to make decisions on strategy
  • Defined group with mandate to coordinate with external parties (eg, Set and DeFi Pulse)
  • Council got things done in a timely manner

What did not go well:

  • Council did not deliver on providing clear product strategy
  • Time commitment for Council members was large
  • Remit was not clear
  • Lack of transparency
  • Concerns around Finance Nest leveraging the Council to have outsized influence

What people want to see:

  • Transparency (on both decisions being made and differing opinions among Council members)
  • More strategic approach to profitability
  • Clear remit
  • More delegation to win teams

Everyone seemed to agree that v1 of the Council was not perfect – nobody is opposed to changes.

The main points of disagreement seem to be around:

  1. Urgency of standing up v2 of the Council
  2. The need for a Council at all (as opposed to Nest leads driving strategy OR separating out current Council remit into a strategy pod, external comms pod, etc)
  3. Concerns that v2 (as it stands in this post) might not currently account for tactical ways to address concerns (such as the need for more transparency)

Calling out specific viewpoints on v2 of the Council:

  • Urgent need for clear strategy means v2 needs to be passed soon; if v2 is not passed, Joe or Nest Leads will likely need to step up to drive strategy
  • Risk of not having a Council is perceived to be high, but actual risk is quite low, Index should do a more robust retro before moving forward with the Council
  • If DAO-wide strategy is the Council’s focus, maybe we should just get the Nest leads together to start those conversations
  • There is middle ground, but part of that requires taking into account specific concerns (remit, transparency) and voting on how we can address each of these (rather than a binary yes/no vote for a monolithic proposal)

Relevant links:

Big thanks to @shawn16400 for helping to facilitate the workshop and @StepvhenH for organizing (and a big thanks to both for reviewing this summary post).


This is extremely helpful and interesting. Hopefully, making the Council agenda and minutes public and having a contributor-led Council Agenda will solve a lot of these issues, although unlikely all of them.

We also have a Decision Responsibility Chart with the aim again of trying to give as much decision-making power to contributors. Have a look and let us know your thoughts. Everyone has equal edit access.

Decision Responsibility Chart


@chasechapman - thank you for leading this effort. I like the quantification of community sentiment and it is proving to be an exceptionally good starting point for the 1 on 1 interviews which are underway. I appreciate the time you put into it and your expertise made you the perfect person to do the work. Thank you.

@JosephKnecht I am still on the fence with the Decision Responsibility Chart - but I really really like your ICC Agenda Queue idea

Feel free to DM me your feedback or make any changes directly.

1 Like