Background: As introduced in this post, the Product Working Group recognizes that our current onboarding process is not scaling well or meeting the needs of our community, product team, or methodologists. We also recognize that we have room to improve the transparency of how products are launched and prioritized, as called out in our recent community survey results. This process aims to provide a clear, timely path to launch without sacrificing the quality and thoroughness of research required to launch a successful product.
PWG is on a path of continuous improvement, excited about new ideas and contributors (shoutout @edwardk, @abel, @Cavalier_Eth ) joining the group – and want the full Coop along on the journey! Huge thanks to @overanalyser who has co-led this process revamp and to @puniaviision for his context and support.
- Examined current product onboarding guidelines
- Conducted feedback interviews with methodologists. Aggregated & anonymized feedback can be found here.
- Note: Due to multiple ongoing conversations with DeFi Pulse on fee splits, future product launches, and more, I did not contact them for feedback, but welcome it here or on Discord!
- Drafted new and detailed onboarding guidelines, reviewed with PWG, POC leaders, and BDWG leaders for feedback.
Diagram/Flow chart of product launch process
a. Status: Complete
b. Link: Product Launch Process Overview - Google Docs
Revised Gitbook entry with highly detailed launch process
a. Status: Ready for community feedback
b. Link: New Product Onboarding Process - Google Docs
Revised Product IIP template
a. Status: Ready for community feedback
b. Link: New Product IIP Template - Google Docs
Documentation on various levels of engineering complexity
a. Status: Ongoing
b. Link: Product Feasibility Analysis - Google Sheets
Documentation of roles/expectations for Product, Engineering, and Methodologists
a. Status: Completed
b. Link: INDEXcoop idea to DG2 tracker - Google Sheets
Roadmap for current products in pipeline
a. Status: Not started, blocked by finalization of prior items
Key Points & Goals:
Due to the length of the documents, they unfortunately can’t be copied directly into this forum post. They are available to anyone to comment, and we welcome detailed comments in the Google doc (ie - what does this mean?) and higher-level or more strategic comments in the forum (ie- I don’t agree with this approach.) Important changes are summarized here for easy reading.
- Much more detailed launch process. A key point of feedback is that the launch process is unclear and methodologists are unsure of what is required of them to move forward, or how to set timing expectations between idea → launch.
- Better Methodologist support. Business Development has agreed to take a formal point-of-contact methodologist support role through DG2 to help methodologists navigate the Coop, introduce them to key stakeholders, and clarify any general questions or add context. (Thank you, BD!)
- Increase product requirements definition and create a formal PRD (Product Requirements Document) between DG1->DG2. We want to reduce surprises in the product launch process and ensure that outlining the work and requirements happens before DG2, so that the work can go smoothly in the launch process! This will also empower the community to vote on products with more context on the impact and effort it will take the Coop to deliver on them, and make sure that we are deploying our limited engineering resources towards the highest-potential products.
- Add liquidity assessment pre-DG2. This is intended to ensure that the product can launch as outlined with palatable fees for rebalances and swaps and there is enough underlying liquidity to support the product.
- Add an explicit Product Working Group signoff of the DG2 proposal. Similar to the point above, we want to make sure that everyone involved in launching the product is aware of the requirements, and they feel complete and reasonable to PWG, EWG, and methodologists.
- Re-institute quorum for DG1. Currently, any product can proceed to DG2 with a simple quorum-less majority. Quorum will remain relatively low (5%) but this will ensure that a product has enough support and depth to merit the work required for the DG2 process.
- Move towards a more iterative proposal process: If a product does not pass DG1 or DG2, we want to make explicit that this is a “not now” decision vs a “not ever.” We’ve outlined steps a methodologist can take to resubmit a product proposal in the future. (Thank you @thomas_hepner for your thoughtful feedback on this!)
- After discussions between PWG and BDWG, we’ve changed the fee split negotiation process so that the Product Working Group will be the formal Index Coop decision maker. PWG has the highest amount of context on the effort required to launch new products and thus can make an educated decision on fee split needed to support them.
We welcome feedback on this over the next week! If you’d like to chat directly, find me on Discord for a voice/video call (@catjam). After the feedback period, we would like to conduct a forum poll or Snapshot vote to formally institute this process on in-progress and future product launches. (Edited 9/10 for formatting)