I would like to nominate myself and believe I am a strong candidate because I have been a member of the DAO since inception and am always looking to add value to the DAO.
Regardless of my nomination I invite anyone to apply for this role because a wide candidate pool will be better for the DAO.
There have been extensive discussions on this matter, and I fully support it.
I would be for a role of this type. I think there have been a few lingering DAO-related items that havenāt gotten resolved over the last few months, and having a central coordinator for these types of things is worth exploringā¦ as Iām not sure relying on the altruistic actions of delegates is a sustainable model and some of these roles are asking a lot of an unpaid position.
If a good faith effort to accomplish the tasks set forth as the Head of DAO ops is not made, the DAO will not pay the compensation.
Of the two people who have been nominated so far, Iād trust either with this role. So while I donāt think we will have a problem with this, I think part of the discussion should be defined objectives for what makes a āgood faith effortā. They donāt have to be super strict to the point of creating a āgameableā checklist, but I think there needs to be some accountability.
With that in mind, I feel it would be a near mandatory ask to have some type of written periodic update in the forum, even if itās as little as bi-weekly / monthly ones. This is coming from the lessons learned with the ambassador program. I donāt think it has to be a full blown report, but simply a half-hour write up of key events so delegates can be kept in the loop with the projects. In this it can highlight key achievements and alert the group to open projects, as well as confirmations that recurring tasks (community calls, verifying delegate compensation posting) were completed.
The idea of having a single person accountable for driving the project forward, especially as we scale and establish more committees, makes a lot of sense. Thanks to @francom for bringing this up. Itās the kind of focused leadership we need to keep things streamlined and effective at this size of Hop!
I totally get the intensity of this role, both for the delegates and the DAO itself. The proposed six-month term seems just right for testing out this setup, and itās perfectly timed with the upcoming launch of V2. I would even fill it out ASAP to make sure we donāt lose this precious time.
Agree with @Bob-Rossi on tracking on a monthly basis; I see it more like checkups that will help the DAO learn faster so we can use these learnings to take in/out initiatives proactively with eg. RFPā¦
Here are my initial questions:
Looking forward to seeing how this unfolds and ready to support in any way I can!
Iām supportive of this role and believe it will add a lot of value. Some comments:
in terms of nominee qualification, is having held Hop sufficient, or should there be an ongoing minimum holding, similar to the delegate threshold, that would help align incentives.
in terms of responsibilities, is there room to add a Hop bridge quarterly review? I feel weāre lacking data-driven discussions around the performance of Hop relative to previous quarters and to the market. If the DAO Head could compile and discuss performance on a quarterly basis, this would be a useful first step. It would give the DAO a communal sense of whether it needs to consider taking any tactical actions. Iām aware of the different data sources from DefiLlama to Token Terminal, and Hop owns metrics, but i think the first step could be getting a consensus view on what metrics are relevant.
Awesome, thanks for the response!
What would next steps (and timeline) look like for this proposal?
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Bob-Rossi. I agree in that ongoing communication is crucial to create a feedback loop that will strengthen this program. With that in mind Iāll update the proposal with a requirement for periodic reporting to the DAO.
Thanks for the comments, 0xLev1!
How will this role integrate with the multisig signers? Can you elaborate on this aspect? One of the responsibilities of this role is to be up to date on the activities of all subgroups within the DAO, including the multisig signers, and share periodic updates.
If youāre considering stepping into this role, what would be your first steps upon selection? My first step would be to create and share an initial report of all activities of DAO subgroups. Additionally, I would work on kickstarting the grants committee and ambassador programs as soon as possible.
Thanks for the response, thegreg.eth!
I do not think this qualification should include a minimum amount of HOP held so that a larger pool of aligned individuals can qualify for this role. Having held even a small amount of HOP for a long period I believe indicates support for the DAO
I like the idea of consistent communication with the DAO and will add a reporting requirement for this role.
Thanks Shane!
Regarding next steps I will post this proposal on Snapshot later today to see if it is approved by the DAO. If it passes, there will be a 5-day period where anyone that qualifies can be nominated. This will be followed up with another Snapshot vote to determine the election for the role.
The general idea sounds good and itās probably a useful role to have.
Thought you answered to shane I am still confused a bit with the payment + vesting terms.
If the payment is denominated in monthly dollar terms ($3k) but vests for a year then what is vesting? Letās say 1 HOP is $1 at first payment. So candidate get $3k HOP. But by the end of the year when they can access it, itās at $0.5 then that means that they get paid half the agreed dollar amount.
Seems a bit of a weird and unfair payment arrangement (for the candidate).
I get it that it can very well be the other way around and the vesting is supposed to incentivize this, but as a salary I donāt think such risks should be taken with someoneās salary.
Agreed, and I can see the importance of the role to improve DAO efficiency, the stable reward for the good service from the candidate should not make too much impact to rise and fall of HOP price.
I think $3k worth of HOP per month shouldnāt impose much sell pressure to HOP, and the payment is to be made retroactively every 3-months. I think the vesting period can be reduced by at least half or even lifted.
Thanks for your input @lefterisjp ! You bring up a great point. The way I viewed this is the work is to take place for a 6-month trial period where the money will be earned after each 3-month period of work. At this time, I believe the amount of Hop tokens earned should reflect $3,000 USD a month with a weighted average price for the period where the funds were āearnedā. While the money is earned at this time the funds are still locked and wonāt be distributed until the 12-month vesting period expires. Therefore, the person in this role will take HOP token risk during the vesting period and will have earned less or more depending on the price of HOP after the vesting period.
What I am trying to achieve is have this role be aligned ālong-termā with the DAO as hopefully this person will continue holding HOP and participating in the DAO. Your point is very valid because if the person in this role needs their compensation to pay living expenses and other things then this payment structure is not adequate. Happy to make any adjustments that you and other community members suggest. I am trying to balance aligning this role with the DAO while also inviting a large talented candidate pool to apply and for the person in this role to be adequately compensated.
I voted for to this proposal. I like the idea of this Head of DAO Gov&Ops trial and I think this role could provide great value to the DAO. As an example, conversations regarding how to streamline and enhance the delegate compensation process have been going around for quite some time, and one idea that floated was that someone takes on this as part of a role at least until it can be automatedā¦ and it has already started happening on the last delegate thread, so great work!
Confirming I voted āyesā for this proposal, as I think the addition of a role like this is valuable for a DAO of our size. I think this should show (and with the benefit of hindsight, has shown) having someone who coordinates admirative functions help the DAO keep moving forwardā¦ as in the past relying on a member to take initiative has led to fluctuating results in the past.
Confirming I also voted āyesā for this proposal with franco in mind.
Voted āForā this proposal. Reason: [RFC] Head of DAO Governance and Operations Role - #2 by takeabreath
Voting to allow Francom to continue his role as the head of DAO governance and operations. I agree there is value to this role based on work done so far, and I think Francom has done a great job in this role (and would vote for him even if they were not just the only person running!)
I just voted āRe-elect Francomā on āHead of DAO Ops Term Renewal or Terminationā. Appreciate your contributions thus far @francom and the value you it brings to the DAO.
The following reflects the views of L2BEATās governance team, composed of @krst and @Sinkas, and itās based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
Weāre voting FOR re-electing Francom as the Head of DAO Ops.
During the first term, Francom did a great job executing the roleās mandate as outlined in the original proposal. Although there wasnāt any report to summarize the actions and the āoutcomesā of the Head of DAO Ops, we believe we shouldnāt let that lack of bureaucracy bottleneck the process. Weāve been actively engaged in the DAO and are already aware of Francomās contributions to the role. Perhaps publishing a summary of the things facilitated could be helpful for the following term and maybe worth including in the reelection āterms.ā
Weād like to see more communication between the Head of DAO Ops and delegates during this next term and more facilitation of proactive actions wherever needed and wherever possible. One such example from last term was facilitating the discussion for creating a Hop Grants Program, which is now live.