- Feedback: OK
- support: OK
- expertise: OK
- funds: How can this organization be certain that goals are accomplished in exchange for the funds paid? What recourse will there be if a provider fails? What recourse will there be if a provider presents fraud as success? How will the organization prevent mismanagement of funds?
Thanks ec1warc1 for your great feedback, you are really helping me to think this through.
How will we certain that goals are archived. Excellent question. First of all the MNOs in an sDAO would have much closer contact with the Venezuela proposal owners than on the normal treasury proposal. e.g. I am speaking with team members on the Venezuela projects several times a week. From the quality of the response to the questions an MNO can get a very good idea how involved a proposal owner is, if they know their proposal or if they have thought it through thoroughly. Getting to know the team is an essential part of ensuring we can trust a team. Therefore to start with I think we would have to start out with teams that we know and have proven to be successful in past projects. Then these teams can then be involved in the screening and selection process themselves.
In terms of how can we be sure that a team delivers on what it says it would. I have proposed to DASH Watch an evidence validation system for proposal owners. This validation system is graded on a scale of 0 to 4 for each statement they proposal owner makes about their project. 0 being the lowest level of validation and 4 being the highest level of validation. I do not know yet if DashWatch will implement my suggestions however they have expressed an interest in this system. However even if DashWatch decide not to implement the system the sDAO could implement this system. Therefore we would request proposal owners to provide regular feedback and to have their feedback validated by evidence. Some examples of evidence include: Photos of the products or services they are providing, video, copies of contracts or agreements etc.
In terms of how we can ensure that what a proposal owner delivers we could have a clear agreement written out on what would be achieved, the schedule and how funds would be released as each landmark of the project is completed. We would have much closer connection with the team leads than a normal treasury proposal because I think MNOs who are investing their own money would want this to ensure their money is being well spent.
If some MNOs wanted to support the sDAO but did not want to spend much time working with the proposals themselves there could be an option for delegation of voting rights to an MNO or MNOs that are willing to invest in the time with the teams. If an MNO that has had rights delegated does not perform those rights could be withdrawn. Building a reputation and proven history of positive contribution would be essential in an sDAO setup because it would be much smaller than the treasury and therefore be more vulnerable to potential bad players or trolls. Therefore I would suggest that because of this added vulnerability a new type of voting power be setup. This would be based not only on the amount of DASH a person contributes but also their proven contribution history to a project with the teams. The teams would start to know who contributes more significantly to a project and this could be factored into the reputation factor. My concern is that with a smaller sDAO and fewer MNOs it could be subject to a troll from possibly another coin who could afford many Masternodes just to have voting power to disrupt the sDAO. Therefore safeguards would need to be built in that would minimise this risk.
Here are a few examples of factors that could be built into an MNOs voting power for such a sDAO
A reputation factor could be derived for each MNO in the sDAO depending on a number of criteria not just the amount of DASH these could be as follows:
1. The reputation of the MNO in the DASH community and a factor given by other MNOs on their contribution to DASH proposals in the past.
2. The contribution of the MNO to the Venezuela projects as voted by the Venezuela teams.
3. The length of time a MNO has been a member DASH forum and other channels at DASH
4. The amount of DASH an MNO contributes to the sDAO.
A factor could be derived from the above criteria. As to how these criteria would be derived we would need some type of voting system for points 1 to 3. Point 4 could easily be derived.
We would need a framework e.g. a website specifically designed so that we could manage and run the sDAO and provide the voting rights that would be required in order to administer this sDAO. This sDAO website creation would be the first funded project of the sDAO but once created the tools could be used for the creation of other sDAOs in the future.
In terms of how could we guarantee the jobs would be undertaken successfully. I would say we would have much greater success than with the current treasury in ensuring the jobs would be successful. Mainly because I could not see MNOs that were part of a sDAO allowing projects to go through that were not completely and thoroughly validated because their DASH is on the line. e.g. the Charlie Shrem proposal would never have gotten through the sDAO because I would have requested that Charlie provide a copy of the contractual agreement with Payza to ensure that what he said was what was going to be delivered. I would have also insisted to speak with Payza to confirm what was said is what would be delivered. I would have also grilled Shrem on every detail of the project over a series of calls and requested evidence of what he said he was going to deliver. If there were any details I was not sure about I, and I'm sure the other MNOs in the sDAO would not OK the project if there were details on a project that were not fully worked out and were watertight. I think this is the benefit of the sDAO. Much closer attention to detail than on our current treasury proposals.
As to how we could 100% guarantee funds were used correctly. I don't think we could do that with any proposal however I am certain we would do a better job than the current treasury set up. Currently MNOs who know very little about projects are voting if they think it sounds good. There are some questions raised and suggestions etc but it would not be anywhere near the level of attention to detail an sDAO would receive with MNOS discussing directly with the team leads all details of a project.
The difference with an sDAO over the current treasury is that the MNOs have "skin in the game" . We would be working with the teams to develop the proposal instead of the current set up of passively waiting for someone to put a proposal forward and determine all the details of the proposal. The MNOs in a sDAO would work with the team leads to develop the proposal ideas to ensure they are right and will have the best chance of being successful.
I have worked with teams remotely for many years and have a quite a lot of experience of working with remote workers. You can quickly tell if someone is truly involved with a project and their motivations based on their responses to detailed questions over many calls and correspondence with the team leads.