Proposal: Governance Operations Working Group

Status: Proposed
Author(s): @Lavi, @Mel.eth, @sixtykeys
Reviewed by: @Mringz
Created: 27th September 2021


We are proposing the creation and Q4 funding of the Governance Operations Working Group [term ending 14th January 2022].

At present, governance operations are fragmented and not centralized into a specific function in the Coop. Operations are executed under the purview of a few individuals and the POC WG mainly, drawing focus from the funded initiatives tied to that WG. There is no holistic monitoring of the process or a clear avenue for iterative improvement or accountability. The desired outcome is providing greater focus and accountability related to governance operations, inspiring a greater sense of execution ease, importance, and protocol ownership. This ensures that contributors responsible for executing governance-related functions are well-trained, accountable and remunerated, providing a clear funding path for governance operations.

It is time to build out the resource-planning, accountability, process-improvement, and reporting functions that a dedicated WG can incentivize and coordinate. Coordinating and executing fair and successful votes, timely reporting, and tracking implementation are essential functions of any operational and autonomous DAO. Given that all executive functions currently flow directly from our governance processes, the importance of ensuring operational continuity in this regard cannot be overstated.

The DeFi Pulse Index also gives the Index Coop access to its underlying components, which are held in its smart contracts. This provides the Coop with Meta Governance power in protocols such as Aave, Compound and Yearn. Therefore, we need to ensure that this process is running smoothly and efficiently by enabling contributors to manage it and make improvements where needed.

Disclaimer: In recognition of the ongoing Index 2.0 discussions and potential near-term impacts on governance operations: This WG, if formed, will defer in whole or part to any resultant organized bodies that may overlap with (or obviate the need for) this WG as envisioned below, or endeavour to supplement and support the Index 2.0 efforts as appropriate. Nonetheless, the WG term is set to the conventional 3-months. A structural / efficacy review will take place within the first two weeks of the final month of the first term to inform a request for renewal or deprecation of the WG as appropriate.

What is the core problem(s) you want to solve?

  • Currently, governance operations and meta-governance operations are done by different people who do not organically coordinate with each other.
  • Some governance operations tasks are done by just one person, without a fall-back option should that person become unavailable for any reason.
  • Governance Ops is a vital part of the community. It includes IIP management, setting up Snapshot votes, keeping the community informed on multiple channels, ensuring quality assurance on IIPs, and more. However, most of these tasks are done in isolation which leaves room for efficiency gains and improvements.
  • Our governance process keeps changing and improving. However, most of it is done by the WG or person that needs to change something (e.g. general IIP template improvements, PWG improving the product IIP template, the meta-governance election process, autonomy group election, etc.). These examples happen organically within the community. However, a Governance Operations working group could support creating such a process, plus maintaining recurring things like the MGC election.
  • Index Coop is in the midst of rapid growth; with the increased number of contributors joining and the increasing number of working groups, we expect the number of proposals to grow exponentially. Our Meta Governance powers are also increasing day by day. Thus we expect to attract even more outside parties to go through our governance process. This is a time-consuming process for the contributors who currently manage this process, allowing little time to focus on other initiatives. A working group structure would enable us to focus our time and effort solely on ensuring smooth governance operations and reporting and improvement of the process.
  • Given that passed IIPs generally require that defined action occur, tracking of implementation is currently happening in an ad-hoc manner and generally removed from community awareness.

Why is this worth addressing today?

  • Most processes focusing on Governance are already quite established and operated by capable people. This proposal is a means to bring the contributors under one umbrella to increase efficiency, improve coordination and streamline daily operations.
  • There needs to be an accountability and feedback mechanism for governance operations to inspire greater confidence from token-holders that voting operations are occurring as planned and implementation status is clearly communicated. This creates a problem as contributors who make these proposals have to spend extra time following up on previous IIPs and, as a result, prevents them from focusing on the work at hand (examples here and here).
  • The current system of governance operations is executed and funded in an ad-hoc manner that is susceptible to coordination inefficiencies.
  • The governance process can be made more transparent and accessible.
  • There is good reporting coming from contributors; however, it is not regular communication that the community can rely on.
  • As seen in IIP-67 and IIP-82, several third parties wish to use the Index Coop’s Meta Governance powers. But due to the failure of IIP-80, external parties do not have a clear path, orientation, or point of contact when coming to the Coop to request Meta Governance.
  • There is currently a lack of knowledge around Index Improvement Proposals, with many community members not aware of how to go about the process and, even if they do decide to make a proposal, not sure of the correct steps or format in which to present their proposals and take them to Snapshot. This group can be of support and guide contributors.

How will you address it?

This proposal, if enacted, would empower the resultant WG to:

  • Ensure that governance operations are being attended to in a transparent and accountable manner (i.e. IIP review and editing, Meta-Governance Operations, Snapshot posting and elections).
  • Provide robust tracking and reporting on governance.
  • Provide coordinated process improvement recommendations.
  • Provide risk, failure, and near-miss assessments requested by the community.
  • Recommend and draft ‘clean-up’ IIPs that fill in gaps or may be required for ongoing DAO operations (i.e. setting advance reminders and facilitating coordination of quarterly funding requests in a timely manner).
  • Provide feedback and education to community members active in governance re proper procedures and required discussion periods.

What impact will this project have?

This WG will aid in fostering the Guiding Principles (Our Guiding Principles - Index Coop Docs) of:

  • Innovation
  • Data-Driven, Community Governed
    • Reporting
    • Recommend and implement improvements to the process
  • Community
    • In keeping with the ‘people-first’ approach of Index Coop
    • Improved transparency, fairness, communication, organization, autonomy, and accountability

This working group will also create a clear and distinct framework to be followed and carried forward by any contributors who may take up these roles in the future.

Working Group Leader(s)

Three people currently manage different verticals of the governance process; therefore, we feel this WG is best served by having three leads, one to focus on each work area: @Lavi → Meta Governance Ops, @sixtykeys → IIP/Governance Ops and @mel.eth → Meta Governance Proposals (e.g. using Aave to list tokens) and Elections. @Mringz will serve as a core contributor for the WG by continuing to serve as the point person for product related IIP’s while continuing to build out the protocol ambassador program.

Request for funding

Proposed Budget

  • We are requesting a budget of $30,000 plus 1800 INDEX over the next three months.

Use of funds

Working Group Leader Compensation: 1,800 INDEX (200 INDEX per leader/co-leader per month).

Additional contributor rewards: We have budgeted for $10,000 per month (This is under the expectation of 2 or 3 additional contributors to this working group during Q4).

Unused contributor rewards will be returned at the end of term or discounted from future WG funding requests.

Note: The Meta-Governance Committee is funded via IIP-51 at $7,500/mo in total. No proposed change to amount or process; however, this WG will provide operational support upon request.

What will you be doing?

The proposed GOWG, if implemented, would be an operations and reporting function within the larger Index Coop organization to facilitate coordination and feedback relating to Governance, Meta-Governance, and Elections.

Over the three month term the GOWG will seek to solve the Core Problems outlined above by:

  • Operations:

    • Review, coordinate, and execute the governance operations required by passed IIPs and available guidance.
    • Full ownership of Operations tasks related to the process of creating IIPs as well as Meta Governance votes.
  • Improvement:

    • Improve the governance process to the extent possible within the current execution guidelines.
    • Suggest experience-informed improvements to the governance process that may rise to the level of an IIP, as appropriate.
    • Launching and further development of governance and metagovernance related initiatives (i.e Protocol Ambassador Program)
  • Outreach:

    • Host a weekly WG meeting (will go to bi-weekly if interest or content is not sufficient to warrant) to review the governance operations and outcomes subsequent to the previous meeting.
    • Meet weekly among WG contributors to ensure that governance operations are well-coordinated and executed efficiently. We will also use this meeting to brainstorm any new ideas to improve governance operations, as well as discuss strategies for implementing new and existing governance initiatives.
    • Ensure that key stakeholders i.e VC’s, contributors, community are actively informed about governance proposals
  • Gitbook Updates:

    • Keep the Community Handbook updated with the latest governance information.
  • Governance Content:

    • Ideate and build resources to make voting easier to understand and execute.
  • Tracking & Reporting:

    • Keep IIP tracking logs updated and accessible.
    • Create and maintain logs of IIP execution post-vote, along with periodic reports, to ensure that IIPs are being implemented according to design.
    • Coordinate with AWG to generate reports outlining voter participation etc.
  • Comprehension:

    • Review governance-related proposals in the forum and provide timely feedback as to:
      • Ease of execution.
      • Necessary integrations and changes to existing processes.
      • Highlight available governance mechanisms that may improve the process.
    • Endeavour to encourage discussion, foster an environment of innovation and support thought-leaders around the subject of governance.
    • Supplement and create resources to build a comprehensive set of ‘bylaws’ out of the passed IIPs.

How will you interface with the community?

  • As outlined above, WG meetings will initially be held weekly and timeboxed to 1-hour, adjusted based on utility but not less than bi-weekly.
  • Group leads will ensure that the governance forum and governance-related discord channels are monitored with timely responses to all queries.
  • Regular updates and announcements via the governance forum as well as relevant discord channels.
  • Weekly report on governance proposals that need community attention and votes that are currently live or pending on Snapshot.
  • Monthly report on the number of IIPs passed and failed, participation, the progress of implementation etc.


We are committed to the 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 and learnings with the entire community. We will ensure that anything we create is accessible beyond our 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 our work for the benefit of the entire Index Coop community.

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

Fund a Governance Operations Working Group for Q4 2021
  • FOR
0 voters

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:

Specific to metagovernance, what would the Gov Ops WG be responsible for? [this question is somewhat tied to my final question down below]

Okay, so hypothetically if someone wanted to run an “Autonomy Kickoff” or “Adding to FC Member”-like election process Gov Ops WG would help facilitate that.

Am i getting that right?

This question is not so much related to this proposal, nor am I expecting anyone to have a hardened answer – rather, it seems fruitful for consideration.

Aside from having a dedicated group of folks ensuring operations are handled well, I wonder…

→ In a world of exponentially more proposals, how else might we (as a community) might need to change or adjust how we think about governance?

We have sorta circled around this question a little bit as a community: Yearn Governance 2.0 Discussion, Index Gov 2.0 - Introduction to Delegated Governance

How are ya’ll thinking a Gov Ops WG will address this point?

Just sharing the current resources in case folks are curious:

What do you imagine doing beyond the current tracking/reporting?

Which, from my limited vantage point, includes tracking then reporting on Monday & Wednesday calls.

What does this mean?

What sort of responsibilities do you expect additional contributors to take on?

Noting my current understanding of the MGC situation in case it is wrong:

  • IIP-51 expires on October 8th (3 months after the Snapshot vote, per the IIP)
  • The $7,500 per month of stipends for the MGC members will also end
  • Unless there is a replacement IIP


  • to confirm, we (the Coop) should consider a potential Gov Ops WG & any future MGC as separate enmities with separate mandates. Correct?
  • What sort of operational support might this WG provide a future MGC?

@anon10525910 really appreciate the thorough run-through here and the opportunity to provide a little more insight into how we see this WG benefitting the community. @Lavi has some specific insight on the MGC and I’ll defer those responses to him. I’ll run through the other questions and concerns here:

That’s the idea, yes. As it stands, when an election is run it is typically @Pepperoni_Joe facilitating that process with the help of the POC WG crew. This WGL would absorb those duties and continue to make sure that elections are being communicated and run in a fair and transparent manner. While the current process is probably fine given that elections are rare, it is not within the currently stated remit of the POC WG. We’re looking to document the process, provide an avenue for feedback and improvement, and facilitate the process when the need is there.

I realize this is a broad question, but I would like to highlight that we’re already seeing differentiation by proposal type (product and WG proposals being a great example). As proposed however, this WG would be an operations function mainly, focused on facilitating the current processes, capturing efficiencies, and communicating (proactively and retrospectively). Additionally we will endeavor to remain apprised of best practices and governance innovations, present same to the community, and help to promote an environment of open discussion around governance topics.

In its initial form it would look like a tracking spreadsheet maintained by the WG and reminders/questions being asked directly in the forum, as well as running through open IIPs requiring implementation on the Weekly Planning and Leadership Forum calls. Ideally after a few weeks we’ll be well-ahead of the Q&A process for those calls and will be reporting on successful IIP implementations.

Reporting within the Weekly and Leadership meetings is planned. Tracking currently rests with the performing contributors but is not made available for review by the community and we’d like to bring more visibility to the tracking itself (meaning anyone can check on the status of an IIP without having to ask, which is the current process). Additional reporting would include standardizing the various ‘blasts’ that alert the community to upcoming and live votes, formalizing the weekly communication around upcoming votes, and after-action reporting (more immediately below).

The intention here is to provide reliable feedback to the community around (a hopefully dwindling number of) governance-related failures. Examples would include quorum-misses and the recent UNI-delegation proposal (I’ll note that a post-mortem of sorts was done on this). The idea being that understanding what isn’t going well will help inform future process improvements and ensure community awareness.

A portion of the budget is to compensate @Mringz as a core contributor. The remainder will be used to compensate contributors similarly to the guidance that’s been posted relating to Governance Reps currently. We have a goal of training at least 2 additional contributors in the IIP editor and snapshot process as there are currently only 3 contributors active in this regard. We would encourage and look to reward contribution primarily in those areas, the communication/reporting areas, and anyone that is producing good content around the voting and governance process. Otherwise, if contributors have actionable ideas that align with the goals of this (or any) WG, we would encourage discussing them with the appropriate leads to determine the best course of remunerable action.

Yes. The MGC is an elected committee that votes in lieu of a quorum-miss on Meta-Governance proposals and with the exception of @Lavi do not attend to the operational aspects of running Meta-Governance votes on the IC-side (posting to snapshot etc.: @lavi) or voting in the native protocol (DPI Multi-Sig via IIP-49: no overlap with MGC currently).

Again, noting that @Lavi will be jumping in tomorrow to address the MGC related questions, but the intent here is to support the process as it exists now and any future iterations. Given the similarity between the Meta-Governance and Governance processes there are efficiencies to be gained by extending applicable Governance process improvements to Meta-Governance. That said, the MGC was created and funded via an IIP, so while we would like to help make that committee as effective as possible there is no proposed change to the MGC or its funding source. For anyone new looking to build context on the Meta-Governance process at IC, please find the process outlined here.

Really appreciate the opportunity to provide some more clarification and if any of the responses aren’t sufficient just let us know. Also really appreciate how quickly you grabbed your Funding Council hat (metafactory?) to provide a review in that capacity.


@anon10525910 I can only repeat what @mel.eth already touched on above, really appreciate the constructive feedback/questions and happy to provide more insights into our thinking.

The current scope of MetaGov Ops encompasses: Maintaining a backlog (spreadsheet), monitoring and announcing votes via Twitter and Discord, setting-up reminders to execute votes, follow-up’s, coordinating any potential issues, and generally raising awareness in calls/Discord.
However, with the new MGC election process (forum post here), an additional recurring process will have to be established and maintained (if accepted). In my view, this would also fall under the GOWG. In summary, the responsibilities of the GOWG regarding MetaGov are “Operational support to MetaGov votes and the MGC”. This includes building out, maintaining and improving said processes, as well as potential future processes related to MetaGov.
Moreover, I’d imagine that this WG will also lead other initiatives and work out strategical proposals around MetaGov that go beyond process improvements. However, in the beginning the focus will be on existing and upcoming processes.

I’d also like to mention that @oneski22 has expressed interest to support this WG in a strategical advisor role, which would be a big value-add. And as @mel.eth mentioned, we also hope to on-board new contributors.

Yes that is correct, and there is a new IIP covering this topic. As mentioned above, this will also cover the election process and funding going forward.

That is correct, MGC and GOWG are two separate entities, with separate funding. Members of the MGC will be subject to regular elections and seats are open to anybody (also outside core-contributors). This does not exclude GOWG-contributors to become members of the MGC, on the contrary, my experience so far was that it’s actually quite efficient to be on the MGC and do MGC Ops simultaneously, as there is less friction/communication required.
Regarding operational support, I hope I was able to answer this question sufficiently above. Please let us know if something is still unclear. Thanks again for taking this role and increasing clarity around this proposal!


This proposal has been updated with a final poll vote. Please vote:

FOR - Fund a Governance Operations Working Group


AGAINST - Do not Fund a Governance Operations Working Group


I will say in my experience @sixtykeys has been helpful in following up on IIPs that I’ve been a part of recently, so I can see a lot of value in having a team that tracks and ensures quality and consistency with the IIP process. For that reason I’m FOR the idea.

That said, I too wonder about this comment:

A sticky on the Finance of the Future jamboard that seems to have resonated was how do we avoid “death by IIP” - I think this group helps us in the near-term as we continue to work on governance by organizing it so things don’t get missed in the volume of proposals at various stages, but I am nervous about a future state of exponential increases in proposals and hope there’s a way to achieve our goals without that.


Appreciate the input and personally I agree and fully understand the concern. The volume of IIPs + MetaGov votes can be overwhelming and we might have to experiment with new solutions in the future. Creating the MGC was one way to mitigate parts of this, however, I’m sure there is more we can do and hope that this WG is going to contribute and lead some initiatives to make our governance process more lean. I think the key will be to find ways to increase capacity while at the same time not overwhelm the community.


FOR, IIP voting fatigue is real, @lavi, @mel.eth, @sixtykeys and @Mringz have more than demonstrated their commitment and capabilities.


I voted FOR. However, I believe that we could merge the GOWG and the Meta-Governance Group as they focus on the governance side of IC.


Thanks for the feedback on the MGC<>GOWG relationship. I’ll try and summarize where we’re at and where the GOWG would put us.

Currently the MGC is an elected group of 5 contributors that vote on meta-governance proposals if they do not hit quorum so that we are being a reliable partner to protocols in the DeFi ecosystem, while imbuing the INDEX token with leveraged governance power otherwise.

The election and voting process for the MGC are currently undergoing a revamp to improve and formalize that process now that it’s been operational for a while.

That said, the GOWG would support and facilitate the MGC election, voting, and execution process. Being otherwise hands-off is by design as there is no desire or intention on the part of the WG proposers to supersede an existing IIP (51), interfere with the proposed one (92), or otherwise change a process that is working well. Of note, IIP-92 would formalize a monthly election for the MGC and I believe the GOWG would be well-suited to run that well-defined process (post the ‘call for candidates’ prior to election, set up community call for candidate intros, run snapshot voting, etc).

I think this extends to any committees that may form, governance-related or otherwise. The GOWG as envisioned would support and facilitate the election process and help that committee with any governance-related needs, but merging committees with the GOWG will not be ideal - this WG will provide operational support on all governance related processes, but will not seek to bring any committees within the WG (Autonomy Group is a good example - we needed an election and @Pepperoni_Joe stepped in to facilitate and that would be GOWG going forward, but the AG would not be part of the GOWG).

MCG - Elected committee of 5 that votes conditionally on meta-governance proposals
GOWG - Operational support/execution, process/result reporting, and suggest/implement(with approval) improvements to the governance process (including MGC operations)

I hope this is helpful @Don-ETH - if I’m misunderstanding the suggestion or if there are additional/specific things that the proposed GOWG can do to provide operational support to the MGC or otherwise please just let us know!


Voted FOR. Hyper bullish on GWG… one step closer to Anatomy!! Hh. Congrats @sixtykeys @mel.eth @Lavi and @Mringz.


Critical stuff and a solid team that hold the Coop dear. Supporting this and it’s evolution.


From the looks of it… awaiting for the OFFICIAL ANNOUNCEMENT… hehehe. Just want to say….HOOT HOOT!!! Congrats GWG!!! First pass the finish line and the establishment of GWG is a go!! :fire::fire::fire: owlalphaleak. Hahaha.


Thanks @pujimak_in, we’re really excited to start building on the initiatives outlined! I realize we got a jump on the voting process, so looking forward to the Weekly on Monday when we can all take a moment to celebrate ahead of rolling our sleeves up a little further and diving into Q4.

I’ll note, despite the Growth WG (GWG) rebranding to Growth and Marketing WG (GMWG?), Governance Operations WG is planning to go with ‘GOWG’ over taking on the ‘GWG’ abbreviation (avoids confusion and keeps the operations aspect top of mind). Besides, nerd that I am, I’ve been having a lot of fun referring to governance ops as ‘The GOWG Apparatus’.

Thanks for voting everyone! Hoot hoot!

cc: @Lavi @sixtykeys @Mringz


@sixtykeys – Confirming budget here.

$30,000 + 1800 INDEX total*, all to stay with the Funding Council Wallet.

[Acknowledging IIP-90 and the shared desire for a well-executed transfer of responsibility]


Yes Greg, this is correct, as our Q4 budget is entirely for contributors, the entire amount will stay in the FC / Operations wallet.

cc: @mel.eth @Lavi


Hi All,

Can I please get some clarity here, the 1,800 INDEX over a 3 month period - What exchange rate was used ?
Other working groups have used $35 per INDEX, which is equivalent to $63,000. With the additional $30,000 USD included, the proposal has a total spend of $93,000. This is over a $1,000 per day for overseeing the IIP process.

Apologies for coming in here late on this, but performing the administrating lift on a governance process seems like a super chilled role that doesn’t require any specific skill set. I don’t see over a $1,000 a day for admin support as something that is sustainable. IMHO this proposal feels mis-priced, my expectations are around 1/3 of the spend defined here. 3 hours per day, $100 an hour for admin and 92 days in Q4 for a $27,600 spend. At $100 per hour, the current budget is 10.10 hours per day.

Proposal: Aave Risk DAO - #14 by monet-supply - General - Aave!

A reference for the $100 per hour rate is the Aave Project Management and Governance rates within the risk DAO and the Aave governance process has on chain voting, so a lot more coordination is needed for an AIP compared to a IIP.


Thanks for sharing this @Lavi, @mel.eth and @sixtykeys.

I’m firmly in support of launching a Governance Operation WG - as since IC has taken over IIP responsibility from Set, governance ops have not clearly fallen into the remit of any existing WG at Index Coop.

However, I do think Matt raises some interesting questions on cost. Since its inception, the cost to the Coop for Goverance related activity has been as follows:

  • Jan - July- $0 per month total
    IIP process maintained by @anon10525910 and @puniaviision (estimated 5-10% of their time per week)
  • July - August, $3,000 per month total
    I was running the entire IIP process for Index Coop in addition to my role as POC WG Lead, Autonomy, Funding Council support etc. Average of 14 IIPs per month + process improvements, in total taking about 15% of my time on a weekly basis
  • September & October, $4,150 per month total
    I launched the Goverance Rep role. This priced the role with a fixed stipend plus reward per IIP taken through governance.
    November+, $28,000
    Cost of GOWG proposal.

Now I appreciate I was probably a bit stingy when I designed the Governance Rep reward framework…

So just confirming my understanding of the specific additional activity/initiatives you be undertaken as part of this WG to justify an approx 400% increase in budget required by this function.

The key things seem to be:

How confident deal you feel that all this activity is value add? What would you remove if you were looking to save budget this upcoming quater?


Hey @Matthew_Graham and @Pepperoni_Joe thank you for the feedback here.

As this was our first time forming a working group, the template we followed did not highlight how our budget should be presented. And due to the volatile nature of the INDEX token, and the fact that we are asking for a fixed amount we did not see a need to highlight an exchange rate.

Overseeing the IIP Process is only one of seven things that we seek to do, if you have taken the time to read through our proposal apart from the budget. We expect to do much more than just ‘admin’ work, and this was the primary reason we decided to form a working group dedicated to governance and related activities. We also do not expect to exhaust the entire amount during Q4, but never the less we decided to err on the side of caution.

Perhaps the others can provide a better answer, but I believe we can only truly assess the value add of the work we aim to by the end of the quarter. From there we will be able to determine what activities we can cut down on in order to provide a tighter budget for the following quarter.


To add to @sixtykeys comments here.

There was a good bit of discussion around the requested incentive. Absent conversion-rate guidance on this matter we used ~400 INDEX/WGL/month that appeared to be standard as of late. We envisioned the co-lead role as three half-time positions, netting a spend of 1.5 leads/month for the group. I think you bring up some good points @Matthew_Graham and I’d like to see where all WGs land relative to each other and their impact. At current INDEX prices based on a 20-hour week we’re going to be compensated less than the $100/hr that you reference.

You bring in some great historic context @Pepperoni_Joe. Thank you. That said there’s a good bit of disconnect between the minimum viable coverage that’s been in place and what the governance process at a DAO that wields the governance powers Index Coop does should look like. There’s broad agreement that things need to get better and the GOWG is our answer to that.

My hope is that TWG and POCWG will do a bit of comprehensive analysis heading into Q1 of '22 that can really inform the WGL compensation discussion more holistically as I know @lee0007 had some concerns as well. Given we’re past the discussion period here let me know if there’s a desired outcome besides elevating the concern ahead of the next budgeting round as we’ve shifted focus to building out this WG; our plan is to provide significantly more value than the spend over the term.