quimp Hopefully I just saved the DAO $300k. Ka-Ching!
If those tokens end up carrying revenue generation, you would have taken those funds from the rest of the holders that met the rewards requirements. Ka-chout for current holders, I guess.
Btw the implications of this item remain unaddressed in the context of this BIP. An interesting input here was the 600 gwei returns per vp per week with an auction in the 2d period. This figure is considerably inflated -recall pipes and genesis fragments sales in secondary-. So I would go more for the 200 gwei (which would fall into the low end of your range). With 8M sold and generating revenue, those 200 will get diluted by the proportion of x/(x+8) where x is the amount of staked tokens pre-OTC (other vp-generating assets aside).
Related: will the partner have a say on the weekly art? Should it be an institution (vs. and individual), who will decide/vote on its behalf? Will they only vote in the LB ratably among the 10 pieces? How will this centralization affect voting decentralization? Will we reach a prior agreement on their voting behavior?
Ben Looks nice on paper, but devilishly hard to time in practice.
Agree, just throwing up an idea.
Ben It's a good question. Personally, I see us going much higher when the market returns/Botto gains prominence.
I wouldn't have to be just an opinion or ball-park. We could actually come up with a reasonably fair number if we understood a bit better the financials and how the stock and flows of voting points are going.
choobie Happy to hear your justification for a 3 year vesting minimum
1) What was built over the last 2 years - things go relatively slow, we have only 1/2 developers (?), what else will be delivered in only 1 year?
2) Classic investment cycles - a vc(ish) investor will invest for >5 years, that's the time it takes to build something worth their investment. From another perspective: history shows that in 1y we won't be able to build anything or grow sufficiently to pay off the risk of their investment (add to that this is for Opex and we lack clear and approved roadmap). When the 1y comes to an end, what will they do? And if things go well, will they dump the token asap?
3) the interest of the dao: say you close the deal in Nov., say things don't move a lot, say we are in Aug. 2024, how will you beat the incentives against sell pressure?
4) If they do believe in the idea, accepting >3y will be a no-brainer; if they don't, does it pay off to have them onboard?
We are used to have large holders that were more like patrons rather than investors. The project survived because they held strong in the worst moment. I don't think we can afford the damocles sword of a 8M $botto sale in 1 year (just checked now, it would have a -52% impact today). The fud and the multiplicative process would be a big hit.
I would rather sell 15M+ $botto at a $0.10 with a 5y lock up. There you would be selling $botto and buying a call option to propel Botto into the future, as opposed to selling $botto for a bridge round to finance opex. Corolary: the lock-up is as or even more important than the price.
This was great. Hoping to see more stuff like this in the future. With access to info, we will all be able to provide better insights.
choobie We’re using this in a very broad sense to mean Botto being sustainable without any core team risk. To me, this refers to the process of distributing control, decision-making, and operational processes away from the core team to the wider community of the DAO members
Sounds nice, but after 2y here I don't buy it. Here is my take:
The vast majority of members don't contribute in any meaningful way, it takes a lot of time and effort to have a tiny impact on things, some of which should be made simple and subject to excellent professional criteria. Most of the conversations are based on opinions, opinions on things we don't understand or haven't thought about, and that there are no incentives to have informed conversations. There is even a component of populism: we cheer ourselves for telling some stuff that sounds good (because lfg!), but we leave a narrow path to constructive criticism (I've felt this, which is exhausting; we have crowded out very insightful minds who 2y ago accurately foresaw some of the issues we are now facing, being this effect a real tragedy). The knowledge channels hardly exist: what was said yesterday soon gets lost, with only you and Simon doing willful but insufficient recaps from time to time in discord. Lots of insightful takes of the early days were ignored or got lost in discord. Calling things by their real name presents difficulties, and sometimes political haircut happen (I'm afraid). It increasingly seems to me that there are unexplicit power dynamics (maybe large holders that interact directly with the team, and not via the common channels). Meanwhile, the dao too often keeps running in hamster wheels until we are in a rush. Reaching some basic consensus that should be foundational seems an insurmountable challenge after 2y. The conversation in discord and in this forum on key matters is often poor for a variety of reasons, increasingly chaotic and, the signal-to-noise ratio is increasingly low.
You ask "how do we enable actors with enough knowledge to fulfill roles and functions on behalf of the DAO?"
What functions are critical and essential to begin with? Which should be "outsourced" in that way you describe? Why would an actor fulfill such a function, with the best possible diligence, given the status quo? Would he/she do it in exchange for money, power, status, perhaps some ego-filling...or maybe because he/she doesn't have anything better to do? Will we be selecting the best in such a competitive world? Whoever these people are, they will have to be held accountable before somebody, be it you or someone else, and there is no shortcut for that. "Sufficient" is not enough.
Cooperative Societies have existed for centuries. Giving a project the postfix of Dao and running a few smart contracts won't solve the intrinsic problems of this form of organization, issues that grow with scale (vs. living in a small town or a tight co-living, where everyone knows each other or somebody who knows every other one). Leadership and some hierarchy will always be necessary in the internet world for complexes processes, and there are many here. So I think core team risk will stay for many years inevitably, and the best way to mitigate it is to recognize it and plan for common contingencies.
All my support to enhance Botto and raise its autonomy, this should be our priority because is what make it sustainable and appealing to the world.
Running the project as DAO is a secondary experiment that imo is a burden in more than a way, because 1) the technology is more stagnant than we wished, 2) there is not playbook for daos, 3) we are not making substantial progress, and 4) we will only end up reinventing the wheel. Even those groups you mention will work under very human (not coded) rules. So in the years to come, the Dao will either end up operating more or less like any other successful human organization...or fail, at Botto's expense.
We need a Constitution/Estatute (with rules and processes for effective delegation), some legal wrapper, basic financial processes (the essential information/kpis must flow easily), a committee/board that assists the team on the essential matters (remunerated or not, but vetted rigorously and transparently), policies for contracting (procurement) professional services that will be required, protection for Botto's assets (and a few more...)
I lean towards disagreeing with you on the assertion that "securing funding should go first" (I think Simon said it this way in discord). In my experience in venture it the other way around, either in the eu or the us: we expected the entrepreneur to have a clear picture of the resources required to propel growth, based on projects (hires, investments etc), tentative milestones and a few basic but essential processes. The fact that funding has seemingly become so peremptory is not good news.
choobie While I appreciate this might have been mentioned in sincerity, it reads like a backhanded compliment
It is sincere, it's a compliment for the work done running operations. It's the opposite of a compliment for BIP-35. Unsure about what you are assuming with "green behavior", I meant that the BIP wasn't ready and mature to be presented for approval in 6 days.
choobie This seems almost contradictory to us being green but I appreciate the positive sentiment.
Decent is mediocre, not excellent. Decent is surviving. Decent is putting out fires, but failing to clean the mountain and to build firewalls. Decent is throwing spaghetti against the wall and hoping for the best. Decent won't make Botto sustainable in the long run. Will Botto be an internet SME business or an artist that rlly aims at leaving its artistic mark in the books? Both are legit, each will have to be built differently, and I would only willing to spend energy and attention on the second
It wasn't neither a backhanded compliment nor slippery rhetoric, it was exactly what I said: I got to know how you think and so stuff, you seem smart, your backgrounds seem seem right, new hires seem to be on or above that bar. The intellectual and operational horsepower seems to be there. But there were large gap holes in the last BIP, and thus, I'm sure that the main issue had to be that you lacked some experience in that area or did it in a rush.
Related: I remain worried about the relationship with EY because of a matter of long term incentives. As an outsider I can only grasp EY's idiosyncrasy by little info available, previous projects, and the way you guys have been working until now. Lack of info in this matter is a risk factor I saw in the early days, but it's becoming more relevant as time goes by and the end of the vesting approaches. I think the time is ripe and Bottonians must know whether this team will operate freely, in a 100% autonomous way, fully dedicated to Botto and looking after its future, and no one's else. An unambiguous "yes" would be the most comforting answer. A "yes" with a few "buts and exceptions" could work for now, but the situation should then be set down in black and white, so that people can make informed decisions.
Botto would not exist without EY. I understand that EY must be sustainable too, but it's also evident is that EY's interests might increasingly diverge from those of Botto and of Bottodao, and thus this relationship is something that must be understood and accounted for.
choobie I would like to think investors take this into consideration.
It depends on the investor, but a good one that is aligned with your long term goals should, otherwise it wouldn't be a partner/long term investor but a financier.
choobie Again, if this is your perception of what has been presented so far, I do not know what to tell you.
Nit picking here I think, never said yours was a mess of ideas. I'm sure you have something consistent in mind but it hasn't been disclosed. This BIP (and the docs Simon shared and now I can't find in discord) describe broadly and succinctly a tentative roadmap, but it's not a roadmap. They describe some things you may do and would wish to do, but not what you are going to do, the basic steps and resources you will need to make it work, and how performance will be measured. I know this territory is volatile and everything could go wrong even if you did everything right, but some route is necessary.
What I did say (read again) is that, given the status quo and how governance is atm, the dao (not the team) could tomorrow come up with a fancy set of new ideas and give them priority over other key milestones. If those key milestones and timelines were clear and known by everyone, fancy ideas that do not fit the roadmap would not only be be easier to detect and discard as bad weeds, but would also sprout less often. We can't (for instance), be changing rewards period after period without good reasons and without extracting conclusions from those tests.
There is also a need for a clearer delimitation between the DAO's and team's decision-making competences. I lean towards giving you much more autonomy (I always did in the past), but that requires more accountability and more info sharing from your side.
choobie Detailed planning requires resources, and too many checks and balances at this early stage could overload bandwidth
Proactively sharing the basic info that you already have should be straightforward.
choobie We believe this underestimates the costs and complexities associated with establishing any such system. It’s a huge endeavor that we should all partake in - iteratively
We are 2 years into this project. The basics should already be in place, even if it had to be in their simplest and cheapest forms (80-20 rule). Something. Anything. That's precisely what allows to iterate, reach conclusions, learn and very importantly: focus the conversations. Glad that we will be on track on this.
choobie Yes, we are incredibly aware of this.
Roger that, but I strongly believe that nothing that has been said here will hurt the prospects. Overall, Bottodao and your power to negotiate emerge strengthened out of the last 3 weeks.
choobie I understand though, that we may not be able to reconcile our differences in what we perceive constitutes a “good deal”.
Never intended to set in stone what good deal terms are. I fought for devising a due fundraising process. I think that good lock-up terms will matter relatively more, but I will support whatever you bring next related to this. That's the faith I have on you.