Proposing a Growth Working Group III [NEW BUDGET + POLL ADDED]

I’m making my position known. I’ll be Voting against this.

With that being my opinion may changed with further clarification, but as of now it doesn’t benefits the language ops in the midterm.


Although this is a last minute reply, and admittedly I do not follow GWG meetings on a regular basis, there are a few points I want to make.

First, I would appreciate greater visibility w.r.t. how the proposed budget impacts compensation for part-time regional contributors (like myself). I create content and manage communities specific to my region, and it has been bumpy from the beginning. The Ethereum ecosystem in China has not been as dominant as in the west, and index investing in the crypto space is a concept completely alien to Chinese institutional and retail investors. Meanwhile, government censorship provides additional barriers for our CN platforms . Spearheading content production and community engagement in China while maneuvering between government regulations require creative work and local knowledge. Less than 20% of my work is word-for-word translating (which is necessary), despite my reward coming from lang-ops. I was under the impression earlier that the coop is centralizing and automating (???) local content production? I was also told translation work will be benchmarked against a per-word rate asked by translation agencies. I am deeply worried that this would significantly compromise the quality of international content, as our content is niche and requires profound understanding of blockchain and cryptocurrency. I do not speak for all international contributors but it would be helpful if one of the core contributors could add more visibility.

Next, on APAC expansion. Several Asia markets, including Korea, ASEAN and Greater China, have tremendous growth potential for our products. My hunch tells me penetration cost is not cheap for these markets, especially for spending on content, events and sponsorships. Let me make one example to illustrate some potential spending on PR/marketing. Typical rate for holding AMA with blockchain media outlets in China is around 8k. Also, due diversity in culture and language in the APAC region, contributors with deep local knowledge from this space are essential to hitting growth targets. I support any budget initiative that increase allocation to APAC and lang-ops. I understand that there are different phases for roll-out and we’re testing waters for now but I am looking forward to more allocation for this region over the coming quarters.


Against. I will vote against this proposal because it removes language-ops support.

Language ops revolve around communicating Coop materials in languages other than English, participants translate and publish blogs as well as run social media channels publishing microcontent. That already relies on a giant amount of intrinsic motivation. Removing bounties will not help.

My request for considering a budget has been met with zero engagement, except an outside Coop channels ‘idk’. In response, I offered to find a way forward and presented options. The conversation ended with that.

The new site will have internationalization capabilities, this is awesome, and I appreciate the involvement of language ops members in its choice. To hear in the weekly-standup that translation is going to be automated, therefore taking away the need for translators, was not expected. Over the past decade I have been involved in multilingual sites and publications and not one seriously considered auto-translation. While the tech is amazing, professionally it at best leads to confusion and often just comes across as disrespectful.

The GWG3 makes no explicit allowance for internationalization. In addition, I found the closed nature of this decision for automated translation and its non-communication to impacted parties frustrating.

I appreciate this is a fringe issue in many respects.


First of all - @LemonadeAlpha has done an AMAZING job getting growth spun up and I know they will be even more successful over the next iteration. Just look at our track record of successful product launches and the marketing that goes into those. Every time I open Twitter I see a wall of Index Coop content- and growth is a big reason for that.

Not going to talk budget Bc it has already been covered in depth.

I strongly agree with @mrvls_brkfst , @Tudou, and @pujimak_in. Language ops and our efforts in APOC are absolutely essential for further Index Coop growth. We need to develop deep levels of talent and community members in none English speaking communities. The only way to do this is to support people with deep local knowledge.

So far many of these efforts have been limited to translation work- however they will soon become even more central as these community members further build out none Western communities and begin to interface with key partners in these regions.

IMHO transitioning to translation software is a huge mistake and shortsighted. Time and time again I hear “well these efforts don’t move the needle or are not creating impact”. This perspective is frustrating bc these efforts are still laying the foundation. DeFi is still incredibly limited to a small number of users in the West- most protocols barely have any presence outside of the west. Of course our translation efforts are not on-boarding millions of dollars a quarter, it is unrealistic to expect that. What they are doing is laying a solid foundation and involving crypto leaders (our community members doing the work) in those regions.

We can’t expect to become a global financial player if we don’t invest in and develop people and capabilities from different regions. I promise in three years we will be desperate to build a Chinese/ APOC community if we don’t start now.


I’m sure your request will be met with much greater enthusiasm and support if presented independently and not as a side note in the GWG3 narrative.
While I personally do not understand all the translations by our talented contributors, I do see the immense value language ops holds for non English speakers. They are the first step towards building a global community, and also a much easier access point for non English speakers trying to reach the Coop.


Thanks @sixtykeys and @BigSky7 , yes, a separate proposal makes a lot of sense.

The GWG has been the umbrella where translation related activities have naturally lived since @LemonadeAlpha brought them to life with his personal bounty rewards from the start of the year. This was a generous temporary measure after resources weren’t available for an initial proposal back in January.

The GWG has blazed a trail as a working group example and grown a lot, with some excellent longform and microcontent capabilities that underpin the Coop’s products’ market successes.

The informal language ops group has also grown and established a lightweight yet highly productive group of contributors who cross into may areas of the Coop with great in-depth knowledge.

With all the growth, it was perhaps inevitable that coordination and admin would suffer, and in no small part because of my own ‘problems with bandwidth’. So, a separate group that can simplify admin while helping project the Coop farther afield is worth a shot. If we can make an amplifier for the GWG, BD and other WG initiatives, then let’s go :fire:

And, I believe, by removing language-ops considerations from the GWG budget discussion there can be fewer distractions and the GWG3 can setup to monster Q3!


I’m just confused, tbh.

I’ll start by adding I think language ops has been a valuable addition (evident by me offering to fund it from a personal bounty the past 6+ months).

But language ops has never fallen under GWG.

The decisions here seem rash. I didn’t tell you “idk” @mrvls_brkfst, that is disingenuous. I told you I don’t have room for the $40k you added (post poll) in the GWG III budget.

GWG is explicitly not the treasury.

I’ve also never made a decision to use automated translations, period.

Is GWG, which has just pared down its budget substantially and is already covering a ton of ground in terms of scope, to be voted on based on its disclusion of other budgets? I didn’t think that made sense.

1 Like

The passing of this proposal is obviously in my own personal interest so I will keep this as short as possible.

First off I see validity in both sides of this recent conversation. Secondly from getting to know members of gwg (and the wider community), my perspective is that we find ourselves here through environmental factors and not personal ones. It is not my belief that anyone has at any point acted in bad faith.

As made clear above the funding for lang. ops. was never formalized and unfortunately, we now find ourselves in a time-pressured situation without a formal solution. @LemonadeAlpha has clearly stated his reasonings and personally, I firmly support them.

It is my suspicion that this is nothing more than a series of unfortunate misunderstandings and missed communications. 100% of which I do not believe are anybody’s fault. We lead busy lives and are working passionately in a fast-paced environment. Limited face-to-face communications, multiple time zones, and even across cultures can all contribute to a mismatch of expectations.

Whilst I don’t agree with @mrvls_brkfst’s method, I do sympathize with the motive. With the funding unclear and unsure of a way to move forward he acted to ensure something he (+many others, including myself) passionately believe will benefit the long-term growth of the co-op, can continue.

Automation: We are all in agreement that automation is the way forward but is no silver bullet. We still require the human touch to verify accuracy, especially when dealing with the nuances and complexities of what we trying to communicate. All going well it may even free up the people we have built relationships with to concentrate on building out our regional footprint.


We need a solution, and we need it quickly. Let’s use this opportunity to drive a positive outcome.
I believe the time has come to formally recognize the hard work and importance of lang ops and hope to see a formal solution put forward to be funded from FC.

1 Like

It seems like expectations were mismatched, temporary measures extended beyond sustainability and also some assumptions are being made.

IC forums are usually free of personal attacks or even descriptions of other people’s personality which I think is healthy when communicating publicly. I would ask anyone involved to take a breath and unwind the misunderstandings with care.

In case I’ve understood enough of the language ops issue, we are still at a point where the translators, and I believe the coop at large, would benefit from language ops being an autonomous WG. Let’s bring that over to a separate thread and focus on GWG in this thread.
In case a new language ops group is formed it is likely to intersect with the GWG. Some translators have a lot of drive to push out original content as well and hope to make an impact in their local area. How to strategize and reward this properly?


I have deleted my previous post.

It was an emotional outburst that manifest as a direct personal attack for which I am truly sorry. I deviated far from Coop principles and Guidelines and caused unnecessary distraction. I regrettably transposed my frustration and sincerely do not hold any personal ill will. I was late to the debate, gave little time for reply, made assumptions, and made recommendations about the vote. The post should never have been written and never have stood.

I apologise for all upset caused within the Coop and, most of all, with the person it was directed at. There is no place for such a post at any time here, or anywhere.


Eitherway; what happen be in the past. I think the key takeaway I got from this, we constantly need to be reminded of the Core Principles. Human in nature are forgetful creatures.

But what resonates me the most is the value of EMPATHY; we always need to be mindful that as a DAO, we come from different background, cultures, world views, and sooo much more. It’s always best to take a step back when emotion runs high. And it’s always best to show HUMILITY at times of crisis.

Anyways let’s come back to the discussion table, and find a solution together for Lang-Ops. I feel there’s always a silver lining towards what has transpired. How and what method moving forward is up for deliberation. But one thing for sure; the outcome of this is always the best at that particular time and circumstances.

Personally I look forward to assist and giving inputs so that all of those involved in LangOps are represented. Let’s do this guys~



This is a lovely message to share with the community - it shows honesty, empathy, vulnerability, and more.

This is what the Coop is all about.


I respect your follow up @mrvls_brkfst

I also think we should pass this vote, with @LemonadeAlpha 's updated budget, then solve lang ops as its own thing.

We can ensure the website tech can handle a bunch of ways to translate and post, then figure out what we do in time with clear communications and respect for individuals involved in lang ops.


Could not agree more with @gregdocter.

Standing up for something you believe in is a strength. As is making you’re voice heard and making difficult decisions.

Contrition is 100% a strength also and should be applauded.

We can all learn from from this and move forward stronger together. :owl::heart:


No hard feelings and I am certainly responsible for falling short on communication around this matter.

We are all on the same team and Gav is a respected member of Index Coop for good reason. I admire his tenacity towards acquiring stability for language ops.

Excited to see both initiatives move forward!


Hey @LemonadeAlpha with the FC grant hopefully landing later this week just wanted to confirm the final numbers. You’re expecting a total of $278.5k in INDEX at the time of transaction to fund the GWG, $151.5k of which will be held in the FC wallet for monthly reward distribution, the remaining $127k will be sent to the GWG wallet for additional costs/initiatives?

1 Like

@LemonadeAlpha bump here :point_up:

1 Like

That is correct; we have more than that in the GWG multisig as is, though.

1 Like

@DarkForestCapital if @LemonadeAlpha has still money in the GWG multisig (because of his previous prudent financial management!) does there need to be any more funds sent?

cc @gregdocter for visibility

1 Like

Just sent a similar message in Discord. No I think it’s fine to let working groups use leftover for expenses and have the FC sit on the budget for the time being/send across the difference if required.