Oversight is a key function in organisations that’s largely missing in DAOs. As such, we pay big sums but delivery is often underwhelming.
ArbitrumDAO seems to be organically evolving a model based on oversight committees when a grant surpasses a certain sum, with a recent example of Thrivecoin’s proposal for 3mn+ ARB and an oversight committee.
I’m proposing we create some guidelines and principles for said committees to facilitate everyone’s task of setting up valuable initiatives for the DAO. I have added some statements to Pol.is to facilitate this discussion:
If you’re not familiar with Pol.is, it allows you to quickly agree/disagree with a series of statements and add your own statements for others to comment too. Give it a try
my suggestion is to seaparate out the problem (WHAT is the painpoint … I see DEF promising to drawdown grant but instead liquidates a lump sum depressing price 4 everyone else) vs HOW (smart contracts as disbursement drip-drop). that way you can figure out tradeoffs rather than early bickering over details.
This was my first time using Pol.is. I thought it was a cool way to quickly see what others think on the topic of DAO oversight committees. Plus, anonymizing the statements is a good idea I’m looking forward to see the results when you share them!
there is not unfortunately. Best I can offer is to comment in this thread and/or add an alternative statement. For example if 5 (a variable) is too high/low, make a statement proposing 4 to be the right number.
Side note: via the RnDAO program, we’re working on a better tool for this job: https://getharmoni.ca but it will take some time before it’s ready as we couldn’t fund it from our limited pilot budget. They’ll be applying to a Questbook grant soon and fingers crossed they get it
