**POLL CLOSED** - Proposal: Business Development Working Group III

Title: Proposing a Business Development Working Group III
Status: Proposed
Author: @BigSky7 @mringz
Reviewed by: @Matthew_Graham @bax86 @Miza @pujimak_in


The Business Development Working Group (BDWG) is the strongest business development team in DeFi. Our team is building a culture and values-based framework for developing strong win-win relationships, ecosystem wide partnerships, and product adoption.

We are proposing the third iteration and Q4 funding for the Business Development Working Group for the next 6-months starting on the 1st October 2021 and running until the 1st of April 2022.

Overview of Major accomplishments:

Strategic Initiatives

DeFi Partnerships and Integrations

Methodologist Relations

DAO Treasury Diversification

Regional Expansion

What are the core problems we want to solve

  • The mission of BDWG is to drive protocol growth by developing relationships and facilitating partnerships across the crypto ecosystem.

  • External parties struggle to interface with the DAO to drive important initiatives and co-create products, BDWG is positioned to facilitate effective communication between the Index Coop DAO, it’s contributors and these external parties.

  • We facilitate mutually beneficial partnerships and integrations that create unforkable value for all parties involved which subsequently results in growing the ecosystem as a whole.

Why is this worth addressing today

  • Partnerships are a core reason for the success of our DAO today. The majority of the AUM we have created is because of our partnerships with external methodologists. We believe having a working group dedicated to making the process of partnering with Index Coop more easier, accessible, efficient and effective will only help the DAO scale as we are more likely to attract more quality partners increasing the likelihood of us co-launching and supporting successful products.

  • The reason we believe it is worth addressing today is because our growth is very dependent on the amount of use cases we can create for our products and the amount of innovative products we launch, having a working group dedicated to sourcing and facilitating these processes is vital to the success of Index Coop.

How we will address it

BDWG empowers contributors to effectively drive relationships and collaborations within the following verticals and areas of focus.

  • DeFi Partnerships and Integrations

    • Q4 Core KPIs:
      • Index Coop Products listed as collateral on all three major money markets (AAVE, Compound, Maker) as well as emerging protocols (C.R.E.A.M, Rari Capital)
      • $100 million of Coop products held across DeFi protocols
      • $20 million of Coop products liquidity on L2 / side-chains
  • Methodologist Relations

    • Q4 Core KPIs:
      • 4 new methodologies proposed and passed DG1
      • 2 new methodologies proposed and passed DG2
  • DAO Treasury Relations

    • Q4 Core KPIs:
      • $20 million IC products held by major DAO treasuries
  • University Relations

    • Q4 Core KPIs:
      • Sponsor 5 blockchain club related events
      • Create rotating internship program that allows university students to shadow BDWG for six week periods
      • Facilitate the delegation of >$5 million of $INDEX from participating VC’s across major university blockchain clubs
  • Investor/Stakeholder Relations

    • Q4 Core KPIs:
      • Build best in class investor relations and leverage all major stakeholders to drive results for the Coop
      • Continue to ensure the highest governance participation in DeFi
  • Regional Expansion

    • Q4 Core KPIs:
      • Building on the success of the APAC WG lay the foundation for the establishment of (3) regionally focused groups i.e LATAM, Africa, Eastern Europe

Each vertical is directly responsible for managing and facilitating relationships and meetings.

Additionally, BDWG will be aggressively setting up a more accessible onboarding process inspired by @bradwmorris post on On-boarding 2.0. We believe building out and improving our onboarding process will be key for BDWG achieving our Q4 2021 & Q1 2022 goals.

What impact will this Working Group have

BDWG drives impact across these three major areas:

  • Building Relationships

    • Establish a culture and values-based framework for developing long-term mutually beneficial relationships between our DAO and external partners
  • Product Access

    • BDWG ensures that IC products are easily accessible for everyone in the world
  • Product Usability

    • Ensure that IC products can be used throughout DeFi

Working Group Leader(s)

Request for funding

Proposed Budget:

We are requesting a budget of $277.5K contributor rewards and $150K for additional expenses totalling $427.5K over the next 6 months. Making an allocation of $213.75K per quarter for Q4 2021 & Q1 2022.

The budget will be allocated in the following currencies:

  • USDC: $198K
  • Fixed INDEX: 900
  • INDEX at 20-day TWAP: $198K

The additional BDWG additional expenses budget will be allocated to our BD Multi-sig totalling $150K ($75K USDC & $75K INDEX).

The contributor rewards totalling $277.5K ($138 750 USDC & $138 750 INDEX) will be held by the funding council and distributed to contributors as per the normal process.

The budget is eligible for review each quarter.

Use of Funds:

2021 Q4

Category October November December
Salaries and rewards
WGL Fixed INDEX Stipend (@$35 per INDEX) 150 150 150
WGL USDC $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00
Core Contributors $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00
Contributors rewards $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
Total Salaries and rewards $46,250.00 $46,250.00 $46,250.00
Expected headcount each month 8 8 8
Average reward per contributor $5,781.25 $5,781.25 $5,781.25
Business Development Working Group
Monthly Market Maker Kairon $6,000 $6,000 $6,000
Gas Budget $2,000 $2,000 $2,000
Partnerships (speaking events, airdrops etc) $6,000 $6,000 $6,000
University Sponsorship $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Conference and Travel Expenses $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Investor and Stakeholder relations (sending t-shirts etc) $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Total Additional Work group costs $25,000 $25,000 $25,000

2022 Q1

Category January February March
Salaries and rewards
WGL Fixed INDEX Stipend (@$35 per INDEX) 150 150 150
WGL USDC $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00
Core Contributors $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00
Contributors rewards $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00
Total Salaries and rewards $46,250.00 $46,250.00 $46,250.00
Expected headcount each month 8 8 8
Average reward per contributor $5,781.25 $5,781.25 $5,781.25
Business Development Working Group
Monthly Market Maker Kairon $6,000 $6,000 $6,000
Gas Budget $2,000 $2,000 $2,000
Partnerships (speaking events, airdrops etc) $6,000 $6,000 $6,000
University Sponsorship $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Conference and Travel Expenses $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Investor and Stakeholder relations (sending t-shirts etc) $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Total Additional Work group costs $25,000 $25,000 $25,000


As seen on our Notion, the BDWG will be split between the following six verticals:

  • DeFi Partnerships and Integrations
    • Interfacing and networking with protocol teams to discuss possibilities for on-boarding Index Coop products on various platforms
    • Facilitating Index Coop product on-boarding process on various protocols
    • Negotiating reward & promotional initiatives to improve relationships with other protocols
    • Creating educational materials to empower new BD contributors
  • Methodologist Relations
    • Facilitating positive sum negotiations and engagements with the Index Coop
    • Creating informational material to improve the process of on-boarding Methodologists
    • Recruiting and sourcing Methodologists to co-create new products with Index Coop
  • DAO Treasury Relations
    • Educating protocols about the benefits of treasury diversification with Index Coop products
    • Facilitating Index Coop product treasury diversification for various protocols
  • University Relations
    • Interfacing with Blockchain Clubs to explore and establish initiatives to improve relationships
    • Creating internship talent funnels for BDWG
    • Exploring governance power delegation opportunities with blockchain university clubs
  • Investor/Stakeholder Relations
    • Sourcing and managing Index Coop treasury diversification partners (VC’s)
    • Ensuring that VC’s are actively participating in governance
    • Interfacing with VC teams to exchange knowledge and expertise to improve Index Coop operations
  • Regional Expansion
    • Supporting existing & new regional working groups with BD related activities
    • Empower contributors in specific regions to create regionally focused working groups

How will you interface with the community?

We plan to interface with the community in the following ways:

  • Weekly stand-up - Weekly meeting slide with a broad update on BD related operations to the community
  • BD Weekly meeting - Weekly meeting where we update, remove blockers, brainstorm and collaborate for BD related operations
  • BD Discord Channel - Communication channel where community members
  • BD Notion Board - Open-Notion Board where contributors keep track of progress
  • Private Discord DM - Co-leads & core contributors will always be readily available via discord DM for any information


We are committed to Index Coop principles

We are committed to serving the entire Index Coop with our work.

We are committed to open, rapid communication: We know that clear, constant, public communication lifts up the entire Index Coop community. We are committed to this style of communication.

Shared learnings: We will share our progress, learnings with the entire community. We will ensure that anything we create is accessible beyond our own tenure for future generations of Indexers to access & build on.

Intellectual honesty: We are committed to growth and improvement. We are open to feedback and will use feedback to improve my work for the benefit of the entire Coop community.

We are committed to making Index Coop a welcoming, fun, and engaging community to work in!

  • FOR - Fund BDWG III
  • AGAINST - Do not fund BDWG III

0 voters


What a WG. And, some squad.

Strongly in favour.


Another WG that is setting example for the rest of the Coop!!! And congrats to @Mringz for becoming Co-Lead as well!!! Looking forward to great things from the BDWG. And see how APWG can compliment this. :smiley: Strongly FOR this!!


Bullish on BD. Strongly FOR.


@BigSky7 really great recap of BD initiatives to date; great outline of the plan for the next 6 months. This WG has been a cornerstone of The Coop; BD drives partnerships, partnerships are how we grow and get stronger together. Watching @bax86 and @Miza really take ownership of the Treasury Sales initiative and @pujimak_in leverage the new APAC initiatives within the BD framework has been incredible. @Mringz, it’s been really awesome to see you running the meetings and expanding the leadership role within this WG! I really look forward to the next term, will support these efforts however I can, and will be voting ‘FOR’.


Brief table setting

  • I’m putting on my “Funding Council” hat to pose questions (See Q4 Working Group Guidance to learn more about Working Group proposals)
  • My intent is to ask the questions that ping in my mind with the hope that they help the entire Coop better understand the proposal and thinking behind it.
  • Questions are pretty much posed in the order the topic appears in the post.
  • If a question doesn’t make sense or is entirely off-base, do call it out :slightly_smiling_face:

Great – noting b/c this is a new thing based on comments/feedback here.

What about interfacing with the Coop makes it a struggle for external parties?

I do not doubt this is the case, I am curious to more deeply understood the root issues (or the hypothesized ones).

Is it realistic to get listed on Compound and Maker in the next 6-months?

What has prevented that from happening so far?

Admittedly, I only vaguely remember a conversation from ~3-4 months ago where blockers/challenges were surfaced and can’t recall it more specifically.

Sourcing methodologies that pass through governance requires collaboration between PWG & BDWG (at least).

How does BDGWG expect to work/collaborate with PWG through the product onboarding process?

Curious, what is the thinking here? How does this help “drive protocol growth by developing relationships and facilitating partnerships across the crypto ecosystem”?

I am noticing that BDWG/LOWG/APWG are each focused on regional expansion in some manner.

How should we be thinking about how the BDWG’s focus on regional expansion is different than, or complimentary to, LOWG & APWG?

Tried searching the forums and didn’t turn up much, is Kairon a market maker we already work with?

What does this mean? What goes into “university sponsorship”?

Curious – why does sourcing more VC investment remain a priority?


Hey, @gregdocter! Thanks for wearing your Funding Council Hat and engaging with the proposal.

  1. I believe due to our organizational structure of being a DAO it is difficult to interface with this type of organization as they are still in there infancy. External parties have never interfaced with this type of organization before and I believe BDWG will be setting the standard in the space for how best to set up this process.

  2. I also believe there is no clear communication or information publicly visible as to who to engage with about what. It is also difficult to verify whether the individual being engaged with is legitimate and has the ability to point you in the right direction or deliver on what is asked for.

  3. Lastly, there are no clear decision makers in the DAO so it makes it difficult for an external party to engage with contributors in the DAO with no idea of whether initiatives being discussed will actually be executed by the people being engaged with. Time can be wasted engaging with contributors that do not have the power to actually execute on what is being asked for.

Hey, Greg. I believe it is possible to be listed on Maker. Not specifically for Compound but definitely Maker. I have been engaging with members of the Maker team and they did express interest in on-boarding BED as it is less risky than DPI because it is paired with WBTC and WETH. DPI was rejected for maker on-boarding because of the risk profile of the underlying as well as the large exposure to MKR allocation within DPI. You read up more about the reasons here: [DPI] - DeFi Pulse Index Collateral Onboarding Application MIP6 - #10 by overanalyser - Collateral Onboarding Applications (MIP6) - The Maker Forum. However, I believe because of the success of DPI - the fact that incentives have been removed, sufficient liquidity is still available and with over 30% of DPI liquidity being staked on money markets like AAVE and CREAM there could be a strong case to make to pursue this application again.

Regarding Compound onboarding, we have been held up for a DPI listing because of the security around the management contract for rebalancing our products. The blocker there is convincing the Compound community of the security procedure for how rebalances are conducted. I believe if we can do that we stand a good chance of listing DPI on Compound as well as other popular Index Coop products.

We are in constant communication with core contributors @Cavalier_Eth and @Abel in regards to new and existing products. I myself attend the weekly PWG meetings, are a member of the Automated Indicies pod, & handle the product IIP process as a governer representative. BDWG also is heavily involved in the commercial discussions of the product negotiation process and we are advised by members of the PWG when products are being vetted for feasibility from a technical point of view. So we have built multiple bridges of communication and interaction. The opportunity to interchange ideas, skills & knowledge across working groups is plentiful because of how deeply embedded both BDWG and PWG are in regards to the product onboarding process.

We are still building out how this vertical will look like from a strategic point of view. But our goal is to develop relationships with university blockchain clubs as we predict in the future they will be in charge of university endowment funds that are being allocated into crypto. Having Index Coop supporting these clubs from an early stage will put our products in front of the people making the key decision to allocate capital to these projects. We also believe we can work with University blockchain clubs to drive crypto-related initiatives that will have university endowment funds allocate capital into crypto.

Members of BDWG was a key supporter of contributors who started the APWG and we believe we can serve to motivate and support more of these regional contributors from BD perspective. I believe as a DAO we lack a strategy to get Index Coop products supported on regional/national CEX’s/wallet providers so we do believe we can support contributors based on country & region to build relationships to make this possible. We have already seen the success of this with APAC with contributors lead by @pujimak_in being able to facilitate an Index Coop product wallet integration on ONTO wallet as well as organize regional AMA’s with the DATA methodologists to grow the awareness of the DATA Index.

Yes, they are a market maker we work with for market-making DPI on Ku-cion.

We have had already had requests from university clubs like Columbia University DAO to sponsor their Ledgerfest. We also plan to sponsor university hackathons which will help us recruit upcoming talent. This all with the goal of enhancing our relationships with Universities and getting product & DAO awareness to these communities.

At the moment this is not a priority only if we need more capital or have a strategic VC we want to onboard for specific expertise and resources. However, managing our VC relations does remain a priority.


@Mringz - to confirm, the poll is the “final poll” per IIP-85, correct?


Confirmed, Apologies!


Powerhouse of a working group! Looking forward to the connections they make and the conversations they start over the next six months! :rocket:


While waiting for the official announcement. Hehehe. Hoot hoot!! BDWG III is going to kill in the next 2 quarters!! On fyre!!

Onwards!!! :fire::fire::fire::muscle:t2::muscle:t2:


Working to confirm the budget, if I am understanding properly…

Total requested for 6 months: $427,500

  • $277,500 Contributor Rewards (held in FC wallet)
    • $138,750 USDC
    • $138,750 of INDEX
  • $150,000 other expenses (send to BD multi-sig)
    • $75,000 USDC
    • $75,000 of INDEX

Is this :point_up: correct?


That is correct Greg.


I was on Annual Leave last week so apologies for getting to this late :pray:… now putting my Funding Council hat on :tophat:

Whilst all WGLs are aligned around the operational burden our quarterly proposal cycle has created, we have not determined the specifics of what a midterm review would look like, and who would be eligible.

As such, could I request we move this proposal in line with other WG proposals and request a budget only for Q4.

In the interim, we will work to figure out what a quaterly review and rollover process would look like.


Strongly in favour of all working groups being for a 3 month duration.

Those with the largest budgets should lead by example and mirror what other groups are doing until there is a defined process for managing longer time frame proposals.

I am totally FOR this proposal funded for Q4 only.


I believe we already cover this here. If we need to do a clawback willing to create a retroactive IIP to re-look at BDWG funding for Q1 2022 when the next quarter funding comes up.

We can do the following for now:

  • $213,750 Contributor Rewards (held in FC wallet)
    • $69,375 USDC
    • $69,375 of INDEX
  • $75,000 other expenses (send to BD multi-sig)
    • $37,500 USDC
    • $37,500 of INDEX

I would like to also reiterate this point. 6 months is a long time in DeFi and without a defined process for a midterm review, we should stick to quarterly working group proposals.

I understand that there is a heavy ‘admin lift’ which is required to compile these budgets on a quarterly basis and appreciate the need to minimise this. However, I see it as a great way for working groups to really focus their attention on what has been achieved in the previous quarter and then plan and adjust going forward.

I agree that we should be moving to longer-term proposals for well-established workgroups, such as BD, with Mid-term reviews. This is something that I am working to provide clarity on along with other members of the TWG and FC. We have until the end of the year to devise a well thought out, structured working group proposal plan which will enable longer-term proposals to be established, more time for review and discussion on the forum (feels like a mad dash to get through all proposals atm) and for more alignment across the DAO with regards to spend per WG.

I am totally FOR this proposal funded for Q4 only. And apologies for commenting after the poll has closed. Super excited to see what @Mringz, @BigSky7 and the rest of the BD team bring over the next Quarter. Hoot Hoot! :owl: :owl:


Thanks for pointing out @Pepperoni_Joe. Happy to transition our proposal to three months.

The funding council has done a ton of hard-work ensuring the financial operations of the Coop run smoothly. If limiting proposals to three months is what it takes to ensure that the Coop, BDWG, and the FC operate at peak efficiency while we build out more long-term processes then I am all about it.

With that said - this is frustrating for several reasons.

  • The need for a transition to long-term funding has been discussed and is seen as a transition that needs to happen

  • We posted this proposal as far ahead of the proposal deadline as possible to allow for discussion and review from the community (i.e. it has been on the forum for 11-days and the post has been circulating for review for almost a month)

  • I firmly believe that WGs need the flexibility to iterate and experiment. If all WGs are confined to moving in lock-step always we will lose out on valuable innovation and experimentation.

Hopefully, in the future, we are able to improve how well key information flows across different working groups and people in our organization so that we can all be less reactionary.


Okay, confirming the-above for the purposes of upcoming FC Grant #5

Parroting back this way for my own purposes :point_down:

$ of INDEX - 106, 875 (69,375 + 37,500)
USDC - 106,875 (69,375 + 37,500)

One of the biggest problems we’re facing in the DAO and defi ecosystem is the problem of proper “onboarding”. The beautiful thing about Our guiding principles is that it gives the mandate of always being at the cutting edge of innovation, as a pacesetter,… with innovative at apt attention to onboarding, because right in our core is the importance of onboarding, properly and strategically.

BDWG​:rocket: This guys are on :fire:

“I’m that guy who absorbs all the tension within the different leaves of a traditional organization’s hierarchical structures”

Index Coop Onboarding Process🚀

:thinking: thinking about Future onboarding.

I must also give a shout out to the entire WGs in the IC and /especially contributors. :rocket: