Hello @DisruptionJoe and @AlexLumley,
Firstly, we would like to mention that several questions we asked in the previous post were left unanswered, and we believe they remain relevant in this new proposal, especially those concerning compensation.
The proposal mentions designing workstreams, creating a council to oversee DAO-funded proposals, participating in WGs, providing support to several initiatives, and setting goals for the workstreams to guide funding allocation and initiative approvals (this last point sounds quite similar to defining the DAO’s mission, vision, and purpose). Except for the GRC, the initiatives DB, and the Wiki, the rest seem to be tasks for which the DAO has already hired an SP (Entropy) with enough budget for 10 people. This begs the question: do we need 2 more people to cover these items? If the answer is yes, then why not expand the Entropy structure instead of creating an isolated one?
Additionally, considering that the proposal positions your function as a “preliminary step to the OpCo,” how does the release of the RFC OpCo – A DAO-adjacent Entity for Strategy Execution affect this initiative? We ask this because, assuming the OpCo is approved, it could start its setup work in about 60 days, and we see potential duplication of effort in creating structures.
It is also difficult for us to envision a frictionless handoff of any outcomes to the OpCo, as it will be a structure built entirely independently of this initiative, with its objectives and employees.
Firstly, the delegate thread is not a requirement; it’s a suggestion. Secondly, you received a payment from the program in July. However, our main concern is that we haven’t seen your participation in key discussions on the forum. While you have contributed to some discussions in the Telegram group, we would have liked to understand your stance on various topics more deeply to assess your suitability for this role. For instance, out of the last 31 votes, you only engaged in 5 discussions.