Dear Gnosis community, dear Circles supporters,
After evaluating the feedback you gave us in the 2nd stage of our proposal we want to thank you for the overwhelming support: 96 % out of 121 voters saw value in the activities we offered and opted for funding the “Circles Coop” and the “bits”. We hear you and will try to continue with our work - even though we have decided to pause the launch of a stage 3 proposal for now.
The reasons for the pause are simple. Basically we don’t see the chances for winning the final round and getting funded by the Gnosis DAO without the support of key stakeholders, plus we are waiting for a concrete, alternative proposal promised by @mkoeppelmann for funding our work and catering more to his own vision. We expect the new proposal to solve our main problem: permanent financial insecurity.
A few points made within the forum thread need some clarification, so let’s address them:
The coop was and will always be open for collaboration within a decentralized ecosystem, especially due to the fact that we strongly relate to the International Cooperative Alliances (ICA) principles, among which “Cooperation among Cooperatives” and “Concern for Community” are major pillars.
In those regards, our proposal was certainly announced to and coordinated with the other Circles groups, who in the case of Joy from Expedition Grundeinkommen even gave us quotes on the success story of Circles to be used in the proposal. In addition we notified the coop’s board of supervisors, where Martin is part of, and asked for their support for the proposal.
As we recognize @mkoeppelmann’s wish for “a united approach and already more clear traction for this shared approach” of the different Circles groups, we ask for a concrete proposal on how a consolidated “Circles Movement” should look like outlining roles, responsibilities, accountability and expectations from the different parts in the new proposed structure in line with secured funding. Since we won’t move this proposal forward to the 3rd phase, we still need to take care of our short-, mid- and long-term funding situation in a different way.
“The funding for salaries (both new & existing) enables human existence in this world, and those key member nodes of the network should not still be living like seasonal/migrant workers. Knowing your job is funded beyond a month or 2 is important to well being, as well as attracting quality people.” As it was recognized in a forum post by @MalthusJohn, we need certain liabilities to be granted, for human ethos and good business practices. The coop and the bits cannot afford anymore to live and work on a two-month-time-horizon chasing a carrot that is directed towards ever changing demands which actually leads to the concerns of centralization within the Circles ecosystem.
Thanks to @BrettScott, who recognises the fact that “many Circles teams have been (at least partially) funded by Martin up until this point”. The coop and the bits are very grateful that we could benefit from those funds as well, but we also feel the strong need to diversify our funding sources as it seems to us we won’t manage to establish a stable financial situation as other Circles groups could do.
Almost completely in line with the perception of @maessedai, a “group of powerful people determined to make the amount of income less”, it’s important to note that this decision didn’t come organically from the coop and bits but from other teams, with Martin’s support. As he’s the person with power here, the community had no choice but to go accept it. We are aware of this contradiction and hence our proposal to decentralize funding to ensure such decisions can be made involving the communities that use Circles in Berlin and elsewhere moving forward, and avoid the “abuse of power” that @maessedai critiques us off.
And again as @MalthusJohn correctly observed, “importantly, this change came about from outside of the Circles Coop and Berlin”, calling it “an important indicator of decentralization”, we can underline that the decision outcome on the transition in the Circles economy was brought to us too. It took us a while to cope with the consequences and prepare an adaptation strategy aligned with our work and our partners.
While we still strongly believe in the incentivisation of pioneering business partners in some way or another (currently evaluating a shift from the local subsidy program to a different stimulus), we clearly have to acknowledge the concerns raised about centralized powers deciding the fate of the Circles ecosystem.
Concluding the above, we won’t move the proposal into the final decision making stage for now and for as long as we can maintain our financial survival. While waiting for a concrete alternative proposal which we expect to grant us a long-term planning horizon, we will work on funding strategies beyond the Gnosis ecosystem. Decentralization is important to us, so we continue to embrace other Circles groups to work on a resilient set of products and services, so we’ll keep the right to act as a joint alliance venture of coop and bits after transparently sharing our intentions.
Best regards on behalf of the entire Circles Coop,
Andreas (Circles Marketplace lead, member of the Circles strategy and finance group)