Thank you for posting your reasoning. Here are a few considerations.
We split our proposal from Questbook because we are asking to be held accountable for a different goalset. Questbook is a cool software which has found a model for executing grants funding which is successful at one type of ecosystem funding. They will move on to sell their software to other ecosystems. We are attempting to solve an unsolved problem in DAOs - Capture-resistance. Questbook is looking to show their software works to find more customers for their software. Plurality Labs is looking to solve this one problem, which is core to the future decentralization of the Arbitrum chain upgrade contract as well as providing legitimacy and credible neutrality to our grants framework.
Using one model for allocation is like using one club for an entire golf game. Its like using one utensil while cooking a meal. Its like using only a car to get everywhere.
Imagine how we could compliment a Questbook campaign. The allocation method they use is great for agility in funding, but less great for sourcing good projects. Here are some ways Plurality Labs could help:
- We could run a Quadratic Funding round which is great at sourcing projects for each domain they have selected.
- We could validate community interest in their selected domains.
- We could run an evaluation of bias in their system helping both us and them address it better in the future
- We could learn how to run their program and software for future seasons
These proposals are not redundant. They are complimentary.
We would hope to bring this down over the three milestones while massively increasing the amount the DAO feels comfortable allocating to compete with not only Optimism, but Polygon’s $500 million allocated in the last couple years.
Additionally, we are aiming to work ourselves out of a job. If successful (or not), the Plurality Labs fee goes to $0 after milestone 3. This would enable the DAO to hire for a manager for a flat fee. At this point, we are asking the DAO to pay a reasonable premium for expertise and innovation, then fill the roles at market rate for admin & management. And we are offering WAY more than just program management for the equal 20% fee!
This new post shows what goes into a framework above and beyond the program. Grants Frameworks vs Programs vs Allocation Methods
The risk of our proposal is higher, but the opportunity cost of not taking these actions is MUCH higher. The upside potential our proposal provides is WAY higher and should be considered as well.
If you believe that our proposal can improve the efficacy and outcomes of how grant funding is used by even 1%, that indicates a potential $35 million upside to our work. A 15% improvement would be near half a billion in increased efficacy in the Arbitrum grants funding outcomes over time.
Who is the “we” that will action this research and development cycle? Their needs to be someone who is hired to do this work. That is what we are asking to do!
We have already mapped out the processes of multiple other grants programs and some of our early workshops will be designed to find out what is working great and what isn’t working so well with each type. Because the results of our work will be an open-source public good, it will benefit everyone.
We would be happy to take it out before this goes to Tally if it became the deciding factor on if you are willing to change your vote on Snapshot. Our reasoning for including it was that this would be held by the grants safety multisig and not sent to Plurality Labs, so it shouldn’t be an issue. One larger delegate suggested that we should have it available in case of a significant price drop so we can pay our team to finish the job and we agreed this could be important.
They explicitly stated that they won’t be sharing details of what they are doing in advance, only in the transparency reports afterwards. Questbook’s proposal isn’t designed to manage a relationship with the foundation program. Ours is!
I’ve spoken to multiple people at the foundation who clearly understand the purpose of our proposal and do not see it as a conflict with either Questbook or the foundation program. The foundation wants to compliment what we do as a DAO.
This is exactly what we are asking to do. Someone needs to drive the work to get done. We will be neutral. We will seek out differing opinions. We will run controlled experimentation, conduct data analysis, and systemically iterate to create a best in class framework.
If this alleviates your concerns or opens up any new perspectives you had not previously considered, we hope you might consider updating your temp check vote. Thanks for engaging.