Hello everyone!
First of all, thanks to @Mareen for introducing this topic into the discussion some time ago, we believe that introducing more accountability is essential to ensure order, transparency, and optimization of the disbursement of treasury resources in the DAO, as well as to improve/facilitate voters’ decision-making processes by providing them with more resources to monitor activity in the forum.
To improve transparency teams that authored GIPs should provide updates about their work. This applies to previous as well as future proposals. The following template shall be used as a guide to communicate the status of a GIP.
Additionally, the community can ask questions that should be addressed in the updates. In the coming days teams of passed GIPs will be asked to provide updates. Watch out for your favorite GIP to learn what has happened since their snapshot passed.
This update scheme seems to us useful and easy to implement, however, we note that no progress has been made in the requests to the proponents of each GIP to obtain information on the progress of the proposal and on the use-destination of the funds granted if applicable. It would be ideal to follow up on this initiative, as it seems to be something that has been requested on several occasions by various members of the community.
For a better overview a GIP dashboard will be introduced, summarizing main aspects of the different GIPs and navigation the community through the proposals.
We like the dashboard for GIPs that was published in March. By the way, thanks again @Mareen for the work done.
Comments (links to the updates) could be incorporated as we get status updates from each GIP, especially those with funding.
We also think that a “changelog” like the one Optimism uses for the Grants could be useful for tracking what is going on in the forum.
The GIP templates will be updated to tailor better the different kinds of GIPs (e.g. meta, funding, partnership, maintenance etc.). Also those templates will ask to set milestones for bigger projects and funding requests. Bigger funding requests shall be fractionalized according to those milestones and funds will be allocated once the milestones were set.
For some projects streaming funds rather than an upfront payment are more reasonable. Here, we are already looking into different protocols for money streaming.
We believe that the changes to the GIP template are a step forward in terms of how project funding works. However, as you mentioned, it seems interesting to think about the possibility of introducing payments through streaming or even through vesting, there are viable tools such as Superfluid that is deployed in Mainnet and Gnosis that could give us a simple solution for both options.
Streaming payments fit well with contractual relationships of DAOs that have a certain continuity (e.g. service providers). Alternatively, they could also be applied to projects that do not require a considerable upfront capital upfront.
Therefore, in case of incorporating these options (streaming or vesting), the GIP Template should be modified to distinguish between projects that require capital upfront and those that do not, as well as those that represent a continuous provision of services and those that do not.
Finally, we agree with the community members who have expressed the need to implement the DAO On-chain, perhaps this initiative could be carried out by Tally or the Zodiac Module in the future.