Questbook DDA Program Phase 2 Request for Continuation

Ok, point by point.


On the amount of time/hours: personally, in january, I have worked 90 hours on questbook alone. And, obviously, got paid for the 60h that were planned. This is why we both increased the amount of projected hours but also switched to a fixed comp: it just creates friction to be paid by amount of hours, and you have some issue (re: DA, half of month, having topped out their hours and not being able to serve protocols). This I think is also well explained in the proposal.
On the economical: we adjusted the rate at 100$/h for 80h/m. Before doing so, we also asked some informal feedback to a few delegates, to understand if this was a fair rate to propose to the DAO. General feedback was positive, especially because currently the average DAO hourly rate is definitely higher than 100$/h.

Overhead is to manage the program after the end in 6 months. What happen is that, if you approve a development grant in, let’s say, july, it can likely go up to december for example to deliver. You need to have the DA (or more than 1 DA) in there to verify the milestone, publish result, disburse payment, alongside the PM.
To do this, we have basically put an allocation, for 5 people (4 DA + PM) for 8400/, which is basically 20% of the normal running costs (if monthly the costs is 42000, in here we have 42000*20% = 8400). This is a gap on the program that delegates asked to address. As of now, the current program has no coverage for milestones verification after march: we are going to either have to operate with no coverage, or just release the amount promised for the grants despite milestones not there yet. I am personally looking to do the former for what it matters.

If you think that the overall compensantion for DA or for the PM or for the platform is too much, or that the cost of the program is too much, please let us know.


I personally feel that for you saying “this is impossible for me or Cattin”, is, well, a bit of a stretch, and also a very subjective thing.
Rest assure that if me, or anybody else, won’t feel up to the task due to time commitment or other, we would have promptly said it.
My opinion is that is up to the DAO to evaluate the results so far reached, and asses if the persons that so far has managed the program are up for the task or not, and not based on time commitment which again, is really really really subjective.

Sure, anything is doable in the DAO.

If the community feels that either me, @Juandi, @Flook, @cattin, @Srijith-Questbook, or even all of us, did not do a good job, of course we can have new elections.

Just, please let me understand something tho: if you think the above is needed, I guess that it means you likely think that our collective results, or the results of at least one of the domain allocators, were not good enough. If that is the case, would you mind commenting on the following reports and data in regard to the program and results? Would love to read your comments on what we did so far, since I think this is the first time that I see you chiming into this program.
(and, of course, I invite every delegate on commentating on our results so far).

Plus if you want:

Probably is also worth mentioning this thread from @krst, that so far has helped us a lot in highlighting to the community what we did, to ensure a prompt discussion, and a quick renewal of the program (with or without new election I guess) due to the fact that currently the QB grants are the only one that can cover in a robust and reliable way the needs for smaller and small-mid size protocols. He literally called the thread “call for action”.