A bit hard to add anything to this. The proposal is effectively a transition from mvp (abstract) to tangible strategies, policies and initiatives for the DAO. Execution will be key, meaning
- the quality of proposals: how good they are, do they translate in proper PMF (we are not talking about products, still we need to do stuff that make sense in the real world, not only in our heads)
- the quality of people executing these proposals: as usual, world and our dao is plenty of good ideas, plenty of capital, and lacks people able to do things.
- the ability to anticipate proper narratives: crypto goes fast, we don’t want to have a short term goal that is compatible with 2024 trends but not future ones.
I’ll do an example even if it’s about going a bit ahead.
One of the goals might be (and will likely be) arbitrum as the home of defi. Might be too generic, but is also extremely compatible with our ethos, history, and products.
Is pretty clear now that AI is not only gonna play a role in crypto, but also in defi; on this, arbitrum is behind. So expressing arbitrum as home of defi, without having the end result of having a bucket to strongly finance ai developments natively in arbitrum would likely be a huge fumble.
All of the above are very general consideration, that don’t really influence this proposal.
But I have something that I think would be worth changing: while SOS sets short term (1y) and mid term (2y) goals, we should do it in 4/6 months epoch.
1 year, in crypto, is a lot. We didn’t had AI in crypto 1 year ago. We barely had it 6 months ago. Is the predominant trend now.
In an approach that is a bit monolithic, we risk to actualize the goals in a way that is backward looking. Few people are able to forecast future trends, and usually they don’t get listened by the crowd.
This could be partially solved by having epochs long 4/6 months in which
- we review the previous strategic goals established in the previous SOSs epochs: are they still compatible with the overarching goals of MVP? 9 times out of 10 the answer will be yes
- we review the initiatives tied to the specific goals that got approved in the previous SOSs epochs: are these initiatives an efficient, on trend, valuable actualization of the goals? likely 7-8 out of 10 the answer will be yes
- we review the landscape of crypto, in relation to the SOS goals: are there initiatives that we didn’t think about that are now prominent for that very specific goal? we might find that, yes, 4-6 months ago we decided that arbitrum is the home of defi, but we didn’t forecast the impact of ai on defi and we don’t have any initiative ai related to growth that verticle in relation to interaction with smart contracts, yield etc → ok here we reopen the discussion, likely starting at that level that is intermediate between sos and budget/marketing, to open a venue to develop AI framework and bot in relation to defi natively in arbitrum to attract developer.
Let me know if you think this makes sense. It is for sure more overhead, more time consuming, and requires more attention. I honestly think that we need some sort of agility and ability to adjust during the run.
Maybe this was already backed in the proposal tho and I misunderstood it.
Main opposition on the above would be: daos are slow, our dao can be slow, is difficult to find consensus and after finding consensus going back to it to rewrite part of the thesis adds a lot of friction. I could accept this, because is true, but we should at least try to strive for the process that gives us the best possible outcome.