gm!
Thank you very much for the proposal and congratulations on the work accomplished over the past months.
I’ve taken some time to review both the Phase I final report and the new proposal. I believe you’ve done a great job, and the DAO should pay special attention to Section VI, “Complexities,” and Section VII, “Key Learnings and Recommendations,” as they are crucial for the future of all committees that will be formed.
That being said, I have several questions that overlap somewhat between the information provided in the Phase 1 report and the proposal for Phase 2, as well as some unrelated to the proposal itself but relevant to its operations.
First, I would like to ask about your work in general as a committee. Do you believe it was efficient? Did you face organizational challenges? Do you think you effectively balanced the decentralization and oversight that a DAO requires with the efficiency needed to execute your tasks? Was it worth implementing the work as a three-member committee? Why continue with that composition? Why not -for instance- concentrate the work on a single member or increase the number to five?
Regarding your Phase I Report and the Phase II proposal
In the introduction of the Phase 1 report, you highlight:
Regarding the procurement frameworks, -which is definitely the most important according to the mandate — I notice that the work is still unfinished:
My first question is: What are the reasons you identify for not being able to complete the entire work in 6 months?
As an example, I understand that the STEP, without being called a procurement framework committee, did similar work (RFP, applications, selection of service providers, and fund distribution). They completed all the steps in less than 3 months, from the on-chain proposal approval executed in April to the communication of the chosen service providers in June, ultimately approved during the first days of July.
What differences do you identify between your work and the delay compared to theirs? An obvious one is that the Subsidy Fund had to be discussed and voted on separately from the ADPC proposal. I ask, wouldn’t it be better if this temp check included signaling that the DAO intends to allocate “x” amount of resources to those service providers, justifying the procurement framework? That would also give more weight to the budget you’re requesting to carry out that work.
Would that be the OpEx budget you mention? Another alternative could be that if this temp check is approved, the budget is included before the proposal goes to Tally.
On the other hand, if the first procurement framework — the Subsidy Fund — took more than 6 months to complete, why are you requesting a renewal for 6 months to develop double the work — RPC and events providers — instead of, for example, one year?
Regarding community engagement, in the report you highlight:
But then you mention it as a situation that took more time and effort than you initially expected
What have you learned from this? What concrete measures will you take to manage your time more efficiently without compromising the culture of transparency and collaboration?
For example, according to your Notion notes, the public bi-weekly calls are only attended by ADPC members (which is definitely not your fault). Couldn’t something more efficient and less time-consuming be done so that the information is available without having to prepare so many calls? What do you think?
Regarding the budget for Phase 1, in the introduction of the report, you mention a cost-benefit analysis:
which is not followed up in Section IV (Financial Review). Only the distribution of funds is mentioned. (Or did I miss it?)
I’d like to hear more about that cost-benefit analysis, especially since you’re now requesting $500K USD versus the $144K USD (+ msig funds). The increase is considerable.
What is the cost-benefit analysis of the DAO investing half a million dollars in procurement frameworks? Have you conducted any analysis? For example, could you perform this exercise based on the results of Phase 1? How much do you estimate the DAO will save due to the work done in whitelisting security service providers?
Final comment.
I understand that I’ve asked many questions that could have been addressed when the Phase 1 report was shared, so I apologize for the timing. I also understand if you’re unable to answer them before the snapshot ends.
I truly admire the work you’ve done. If I’m able to ask so many questions, it’s because you’ve provided a lot of information about what you’ve done, and your work is of high quality. I really like the structure of your reports. Thank you so much for everything.