Hi all, responded in Discord. And I agree, let’s move the discussion there
@graadient, agree with what you state at the main points. Order of answers slightly adjusted.
The response posted here for transparency (for people not following the #treasury channel):
Sequence of Priorities: Get Transparency → Set Objectives —> Perform Yield Research/Strategy —> Set up Risk Mgmt
Team: Either (a) Facilitator-led working group (for more accountability) or (b) Self-led working group. Size 3-4 people overall.
Complexity of Treasury Mgmt vs. Achievable Deliverables: Prioritize hard and set clear OKRs for agreed objectives
Continuity: A compensation cliff could be a way to incentivize people not to drop out.
(1) Sequence of priorities
Provide a clear level of transparency of financial situation + options
—> Deliverable: One-off full status report for DAO (+after that: form core parts into a recurring report/dashboard)
Decide on objectives of Treasury working group for next 3m/6m/12m
—> Deliverable: Clear plan who does what + OKRs
Perform yield research and execute strategy (core)
—> Deliverable: View on treasury yield actions to take and execution
Set up risk management
—> Deliverable: Risk management framework to measure exposure continuously
- Others on-going: Community interaction; Facilitation of communication between pods/committees; etc.
(2) Team composition
In our view there would be two options:
(2a) Facilitator-led working group:
- One facilitator with overarching responsibility for one core topic, steering, and „putting the pieces together“
- A working team of 2-3 contributors, each with a different topic focus
- We’d suggest to split core topics between contributors (each of the 3-4 topics is covered by 1 main lead, and 1 co-lead respectively; i.e., every contributor wears two hats (one lead, one co-lead hat for two different topics) vs. everyone does everything and discuss.
The risk of the committee being run without a facilitator is a lack of accountability and missing potential upsides of the function. I.e. while the minimum barrier will likely still be met (diversifying treasury), we would potentially forego the opportunity to create more out of this (e.g., yield research reports (I’m a fan of @ idea, if executable efficiently this can have great upside potential/secondary effects for Gro), new standards in financial reporting, coming up with creative ideas on how to use the treasury, fostering communication between pods and committees).
Not saying these topics couldn’t be realized otherwise, just that in terms of efficiency a person steering and holding people accountable could be a massive win (this obviously shouldn’t mean that person has more control or so than the others to prevent the risk of corruption. Does that go in the direction you had in mind as well? @chriswong).
Let’s discuss further. Also as it looks, @exa256.eth skillsets are quite complementary to ours (Smart contract/DeFi + TradFi and Reporting/DeFi). Happy to discuss what the optimal set-up would look like. Also obviously with everyone else who is interested in being part of this @karcharodon, @Organized_Chaos, but that just crossed my mind.
(2b) Self-led working group:
- Working team of 3-4 contributors, each with different topic focus.
- Same dynamics with lead, co-lead apply (see above)
This being said, there is no need to overload the function with a larger amount of people than this. For the case that we at some point realize this changes, we should bake in some flexibility for scaling up/down.
(3) Complexity of Treasury Ops vs. Achievable Deliverables
We agree this is probably the hardest nut to crack in the case of Gro DAO. With limited resources (vs. the larger strategic DAOs who „do it all“).
We’d suggest to approach this with a clear prioritization and sequencing of key objectives (see above) and the development of clear OKRs at the start of the working group cycle. These OKRs should be discussed in the wider forum, so we can jointly iterate on a deliverable proposal the working group creates and everyone knows what to expect.
To solve this topic the facilitator-led team set-up would be especially helpful, as the person would sense under-/overload of the group and could then propose changes accordingly.
As this group provides a crucial function to the DAO building its financial back layer so that operations can run smoothly, we need to ensure the continuity of the task force. What often happens and what we should avoid is that people leave the committee one by one. Therefore, I would introduce a cliff for compensation to incentivize and act as a selection filter for committed people/teams (tbd how to structure).