This allocation visualized is really powerful; thanks for putting this together @Matthew_Graham. I will note that the allocation in my view impinges greatly on our sustainability, but not directly on our autonomy (I’m happy to discuss this view more, but it’s more order-of-operations than prioritization if that makes sense). Essentially I would like to avoid allowing the allocation discussion be a blocker to putting control of the community treasury in the hands of the community. That said, the the founding allocation is outsized.
I have already signaled that I’m FOR revisiting the initial allocation. Set’s failure to engage in our community’s governance process (instead circumventing it and monopolizing the time of some of our most hard-working Owls) distracts us all from what we’re trying to achieve here. I believe a founder, at a minimum, should provide a bootstrapping scheme that is considered fair and gives the DAO the greatest chance of success.
An argument could be made that Set’s initial technical support of The Coop has been more involved than other DAO/Founder launch-schemes, but no one has actually made that argument yet (I’m open to it - a common argument I’ve heard re Set’s involvement relates to ‘hands-off’ as a feature, but that’s gone wayward), so in my view the fact remains that our biggest constraint over the last 3+ months has been access to engineering resources, for which we pay. Set is in the best possible position to support The Coop, and instead we’re vigorously and successfully building out the aspects of The Coop for which Set is well-tooled because of Set’s failure to adequately do so, despite their heavy founding allocation. What we seem to be finding is that a large equity allocation that is effectively ‘in the bank’ is not a motivating a reward scheme for this particular founder.
Personally, I see a 28% allocation for a founder that hasn’t been engaged in the forum for over 4 months, has remained largely def to our resource constraints, and now depletes resources further by failing to meet us where we are at. I’m a firm believer that entities should draw power from their accomplishments, and while Set stood us up sufficiently, the momentum The Coop has gained has come entirely from within and that needs to be reflected in the shared reward - as I don’t see a community effectively paying a 28% tax with no commensurate benefit (reward structures should incentivize: direction, acceleration, and interaction - Set’s static allocation has failed to meaningfully align them to The Coop).
In my view, Set’s failures as a founder have done more to harden this DAO into an autonomous beast of self-sustainability and autonomy than perhaps more hand-in-hand support would have. How Set chooses to engage from this point forward has the ability to significantly help or harm this DAO - I think about that several times a day, “This DAO that I’ve chosen to dedicate my full-time to can be largely harmed at the whim of one man.” . . . and that’s really not something any Owl working at this reportedly community-lead and -driven organization should have to carry around. Set isn’t helping drive us toward autonomy, at best they’re a speedbump in that regard, at worst a giant boulder blocking the road. All this to say that I’m not surprised there are discussions happening among those with the most context around the issue regarding how to mitigate a catastrophic failure.
Thank you @Thomas_Hepner - I’m still hopeful in the process taking place - mainly because I feel as though we have no choice but to leave our collective fate up to 3 Owls (desperation-fueled-hope, woohoo). I see these discussions around autonomy as a way for Set to push an agenda without engaging with the larger community, but nothing meaningful is yet to be suggested (besides a spartan council which had already floated), so I’ll wait to see what comes of all this. And I appreciate you airing this @Matthew_Graham; I think having the keys to our own cheese is perhaps the most important step (as Set has control of more than 28% currently, including our treasury) but I’m happy to see this topic still very much on the table; I think gauging sentiment at this stage, given that a roadmap is imminent, is appropriate.