**Updated** Request for Feedback: New Product Onboarding Process

Hi, can you please confirm for me that “irobot” and “Robot Index” are two separate products?
The names seem very similar.

Kind Regards,

No. they’re the same product :wink: iRobot is the ticker / symbol we intend to use (similar to DPI, MVI or DATA) & the Robot Index is the name of the official product proposal (similar to DeFi Pulse Index, Metaverse Index or Data Economy Index)


just added a few comments – thanks for the nudge on the earlier call :+1:


This is an excellent, comprehensive proposal. I love how clearly defined your deliverables are. While I don’t have anywhere near enough context to add value here. I am 100% confident that this is necessary, adds and facilitates high-value workflow and I will vote for on the basis of the worldclass level of applied intelligence and collaboration going on here.


Amazing work @catjam and others involved. Love how the nuances are so well captured and the process looks much clearer and streamlined now with the new process flow, trackers and other documents in place. Looking forward to the product roadmap and PRD documents, would love to help in anyway possible, especially for incorporating a responsibility matrix in the PRD on division of marketing efforts between GWG and methodologists such as marketing KPIs, channel strategy and other activities for GTM and launch. cc: @MrMadila @LemonadeAlpha


Fantastic work on this @catjam.

From my perspective, a crucial goal for IC should be to empower PWG to exercise discretion over how resources are allocated, and what prospective products to prioritize. Empowering PWG to become a proactive unit that defines it’s own roadmap is essential for the sustainability of the Coop long-term, and will enable us to grow faster and succeed sooner in the short-term.

The new product onboarding process you have designed goes a long way towards achieving that.

With regards to your suggested change to make the PWG the decision-maker on fee split negotiations, I made some comments supporting that position. I want to share that here as well:

A challenge for PWG is prioritizing products among multiple methodologists competing for scarce resources. Being able to make decisions based on both feasibility and profitability will enable swifter decisions, a faster moving pipeline and possibly more favorable fee splits for IC.

Methodologists should compete for our resources.

Having that decision made externally to the product approval process, removes that opportunity for the PWG to exercise discretion on a crucial aspect of prioritization, and weakens the position of IC vis-a-vis methodologists.

Similarly PWG (with ENG) will be better positioned to actually evaluate the technical lift required for each product, which should be a central factor when considering fee splits.

At a minimum, this decision should be shared by PWG and BD.


Hi all, posting this to summarize some feedback in the Google doc and next steps. I will post separate comments on the items that we are still looking for feedback on, so that the community can create threaded responses! Tagging my co-owner @overanalyser to provide any additional details or clarity needed.

Answered Questions:

  • @Thomas_Hepner asked if this would be passed by IIP: Yes! As @overanalyser pointed out, we believe that’s the right step to formalize this as an IIP was used to add “Research” to the template and this is a more significant change.

Additional changes made:

  • Incorporated a note that the community call is now a mandatory step, not optional (thanks @Matthew_Graham)
  • Incorporated a note that the IIP needs to be live on the forum for 7 days before a vote is held (thanks @gregdocter )
  • Work Team Analysis: Moved this to the last step in the pre-DG2 process. There has been tension between the WTA and Methodologists because of mis-set expectations around this process. It is positioned as a concurrent step, but actually is dependent on completion of all other steps in the process. Also clarified a standard 3-day turnaround time for this analysis with a 24-hour review period by methodologists.
  • Deleted a reference to the Methodologist Fee Menu in the section about fee negotiation. This was not ratified and should not serve as a guide. Multiple comments from @Matthew_Graham @Thomas_Hepner and @gregdocter were helpful here!
  • @Monportefeuille pointed out that a preliminary Work Team Analysis was used for iROBOT before DG1 and he found it very helpful. The DATA methodologists (Thomas and @Kiba ) also noted that they found this useful. I made that change to add it to the pre-DG1 process.

Next steps:

  • Receive more feedback on the items below
  • Update flow charts based on changes above (document #1)
  • Separately, proceed with efforts to formalize Liquidity Analysis, and make Work Team Analysis more scalable as product pipeline grows
  • Proceed to IIP in the next week. Goal to have IIP live before the end of September!
1 Like

Feedback Needed:

@afromac noted that it might be helpful to have a structured process/template for the community call, while @overanalyser thought there was merit to letting the methodologists drive. Thoughts from the community??

1 Like

Feedback needed: Liquidity Analysis

  • We’ve added a liquidity analysis step in the process, but are not sure if it’s applicable or useful to leveraged products. Tagging @afromac for his thoughts!

  • We’ve added the liquidity analysis step mentioned above, though have yet to define a template for liquidity analysis and expectations from the Coop and methodologists wrt providing seed liquidity. (Good comments from @DarkForestCapital, @Matthew_Graham, @Thomas_Hepner). I personally feel like this is necessary but out of scope for this product onboarding revamp. Would the community be ok with us moving forward, and agreeing to create a liquidity template in the next 30 days?


Feedback needed: Negotiating Power on Fee Splits

There’s a lively discussion in the Google comments led by @Matthew_Graham and @Thomas_Hepner about whether the PWG should have negotiating power over the fee split, and what should happen if members of the community disagree with the proposed split. There’s a call for more transparency and a clear structure or guide to the negotiation process. Would love some more community feedback here! We feel that PWG is most informed of the costs and benefits of the product and thus should have the power to negotiate on behalf of the Coop. @gregdocter noted the potential to form a small committee (like MetaGov) to review/approve the proposed fee split.


My main thought here would be that there is a minimum amount of time that is allocated as open questions for the community.


@catjam I do not think my point of view on negotiating fee splits was accurately captured so I’ll clarify here.

I don’t believe that the existing process for negotiating fee splits works. @setoshi captures a lot of the problems I see in the incentive dynamics between other Index Coop stakeholders and methodologists in An Analysis of Methodologist Incentive Dynamics.

I am not in support of a shift in responsibility for fee split negotiations from BDWG to PWG. I do not believe that shifting this responsibility will solve any of the current problems in the process or incentive dynamics.

I am in support of:

  • increased transparency
  • developing objective guidelines for product fee splits (Methodologist Fee Menu as an example of what could be designed or implemented)
  • overhauling methodologist incentives

Determining fee splits is frustrating because:

  1. Process is slow and inadequate: No directly responsible individual or working group with community buy-in.

  2. Process is arbitrary and unfair: Methodologist fee split is 30% for every simple index product despite widely ranging degrees of effort and resources provided by Index Coop and methodologists.

  3. No negotiations are actually taking place: Fee split offers are being made without anyone being empowered for a give-and-take conversation - hence no actual negotiation is really taking place. The fee split offers for simple indices are always 30%/70% regardless of what the methodologist and Index Coop offer during the process, and as far as I know, there is no process for changing future fee split based on what different parties have brought to the table over time.

  4. New products are at substantial disadvantage in the Methodologist Bounty Program: This has been discussed ad-nauseum to the point of exhaustion and so I will not go into details here.

cc: @snasps @Jo_K @Mringz @fallow8 @oneski22 @TheYoungCrews


Thanks so much for clarifying/expanding @Thomas_Hepner – I did not do a good job of summarizing your google doc comments!

Fee splits have been a very hot topic lately. I’m of two minds relating to this exercise:
1 - the current situation is not working, and we should make an incremental step towards improving it (proposal to move negotiation to PWG from BDWG)
2 - the current situation is not working, has many stakeholders involved, and is such a complex topic that it should be out of scope for this process revamp

Leaning slightly towards the 2nd.


Hi @mel.eth / @sixtykeys – can we schedule this for a vote starting Monday Oct 11?

This vote should be to ratify the new IIP template & institution of DG1 quorum at 5% (IIP template linked here) – rest of the changes should be out of scope for the vote, but good to go!


Thanks to everyone who participated in review & feedback on this process. This is just the beginning – we’ve onboarded some absolutely fantastic talent onto PWG who are going to keep building & iterating on this!

A vote will be called (above) to ratify the new IIP template and institute a 5% quorum for DG1 – an appropriate step as the pipeline for new products continues to balloon!

The remainder of the changes are already being rolled out, and we’re excited to keep launching awesome products together :rocket:


Thanks for leading this @catjam - it’s a great step forward.


Hi @catjam - just want to give some context on the process to move this forward. Ideally the portions of the discussion that you’re looking to formalize will be drafted up via the IIP template, found here. Given that there are two questions being asked of the community, you may want to consider two IIPs. Once the IIP(s) are in a format that is suitable for snapshot, they can be posted to the forum with ‘Draft’ in the title and after 48+ hours of discussion you can call for a vote, at which point the title will change from ‘Draft’ to ‘Proposed’, an IIP number will be assigned and no further changes can be made. More on the process here and any of the gov reps can help walk you through the process as well.

Sorry to be a bit of a stickler, but the post itself is what gets ported to snapshot, so any clarifications within the comments need to get edited into the post ahead of the call for a vote. Snapshot will link back to the forum, but the goal at the ‘Proposed’ stage is to have a snapshot-ready post. I recognize that the available documents providing guidance on the process are a bit scattered - now that we have a WG dedicated to Gov Ops we’ll be getting some 1-pagers together making the idea-to-IIP process more clear (much like you’re doing here for the product-specific IIPs).

cc: @sixtykeys @Mringz


Got it! Thanks @mel.eth , I’ll make those changes / reach out to you for a few questions :slight_smile:


I think the matrix team assignments are unclear. After +DG1, I suggest PWG nominate matrix reps from PWG, Methods, GMWG, and Set/Engineering. Each project slide should have a table listing the team leader and matrix reps with a flag for any missing functions.

It would be useful to have a marketing assessment after DG1 to help determine market potential, segment, fees, and fundraising, and more marketing involvement earlier generally.

Maybe they exist but I haven’t seen any project plans with milestones, timing, resource. These could be owned by the team leader.


Thanks for the feedback, @JosephKnecht ! Your feedback highlights a few areas we’re actively working on. We can’t solve them all with this specific onboarding process documentation, but have many initiatives in flight to continue evolving!

On matrix team assignments: The Leveraged Indices and Simple Indices Pods (led by @afromac and @Financial-Freedom respectively) are designed to help with exactly that – provide DRIs across the organization to own cross functional tasks. They’ve formed relatively recently and we definitely intend to keep iterating and empowering them. (If you have any specific feedback on your experience here – please feel free to reach out directly to myself or another member of the PWG and we’re happy to chat!)

Agree on the market assessment after DG1, this is also something @jdcook has started thinking about from an analytics / work team analysis perspective.

We do have a tracker here: INDEXcoop idea to DG2 tracker - Google Sheets

More to come as we learn/grow, keep the feedback & involvement coming!