Status: Proposed
Author(s): @catjam @overanalyser
Discussions-to: **Updated** Request for Feedback: New Product Onboarding Process - #24 by catjam / Product Onboarding Process Revamp
Created: Oct 11 2021
Simple Summary
The Product Working Group has been working through a series of changes to improve the product launch process. Our goals are to more quickly launch products, set those products up for success in the market, and create a better experience for Methodologists working with Index Coop.
There are two specific proposed changes that are included in this IIP:
- Update the Product Proposal IIP Template
- Institute quorum for DG1 votes (50% in favor, 5% quorum).
Abstract
Further detail on each proposed change:
Update the Product Proposal IIP Template: New template here
The current IIP template dates back to the beginning of Index Coop, starting with IIP-0 (small template updates in IIP-2). We have incorporated a year’s worth of learnings about what is needed for a successful product proposal into this template. This template is also designed to allow methodologists to show off their research, reputation, and credentials!
- Liquidity assessment
- Discuss whether the liquidity is expected to be self-sustaining (e.g. highly traded FLI products) or need ongoing liquidity mining.
- Describe how Index Coop and the methodologist will commit to liquidity provision or liquidity mining to support the product, and identify any partners for liquidity provision/mining.
- Market and customer research
- Target customer research and needs
- User stories
- Costs
- Cost to customer
- Cost to mint / redeem
- Rebalance frequency
- Manual Rebalance Magnitude
- Fee split (DG2 template only_
- Metagovernance needs
- Intrinsic productivity
- Author background
- Credentials
- Marketing support and plans for distribution & partnerships
Institute quorum for DG1 votes (50% in favor, 5% quorum)
Currently there is no quorum, and products can technically begin the resource-intensive DG1 → DG2 process with a single vote of support. The DG1 quorum will remain relatively low compared to the DG2 quorum (10% quorum, 60% in favor). As our pipeline fills with more product proposals, it’s important that our scarce PWG and EWG resources focus on the products that have the most thoroughly researched scope and highest support from the community.
Motivation
As stated in previous discussions, the current product onboarding process does not provide methodologists with clear options and pathway to launch, particularly between DG1 and live. It is unclear what the engineering requirements and constraints are and what engineering prioritization looks like. Additionally, many members of the Coop are currently unclear on the launch process and current status of product launches. Products aren’t getting launched after the technical infrastructure to scale is there.
This IIP is not the “end” of the process revamp – we intend to continue working hard on this, and roll out changes as they are needed!
Specification
Overview
Implementation for this is relatively straightforward.
IIP template: All products that have not yet proceeded to DG1 when this IIP is ratified will use this template for the whole process. All products that have passed DG1, but not DG2, will adopt this template for DG2. All currently launched products or products that have scheduled or that pass DG2 before this template is ratified will not be impacted. The PWG will actively work with methodologists to help them use and understand the new template. This template will replace the current version (found here) that was last changed in IIP-2.
Quorum for DG1: All product proposals that have not scheduled or passed DG1 at the time of ratification of this IIP will be subject to the quorum requirements. All other product proposals (past DG1) will not be impacted.
Rationale
Rationale is already outlined above in pretty decent detail. I’ll use this section to review some changes that were considered but did not become part of the formal IIP!
- PWG as primary signatory to fee negotiation. We have worked with BDWG and methodologists to make sure PWG is better represented in these discussions, including the ongoing dialogue with DFP. Given the larger ongoing discussions around fee negotiations, it did not feel prudent to pull more explicit guidelines into this process.
- Establishment of formal liquidity analysis template. This is something that PWG, led by @overanalyser, will continue to work on, but it feels like scope creep for this process.
Copyright
Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.
