tex I think that the "Request for Proposals" outlined in Grants v2 can help hone in on a similar list for Olympus Grants. The current scope of Education, Infrastructure, and Utility is quite broad and may not provide the granularity to solicit technical grant applications.
Thanks for the feedback @tex. +1 on refining eligible funding categories. I think where we landed on this is that the eligible funding categories / request for proposals process can sit within the jurisdiction of (3) and (4) of the Grants 'How we Work' process. You can see that outlined in the Grants section of notion (publicly available here). In other words eligible funding categories / request for proposals would be steered by the Grants commitee in consultation with Core and DAO-wide Strategos/Leads. My read is that the current OIP could adopt such an iteration without needing any materially change the OIP. wdyt?
tex I'm not sure how we should be thinking about administration costs as a DAO and think there are issues with the incentive structures for baselining on approved/distributed funds. Given the proposed quarterly budget of $180k, I would appreciate some more information on how we should perceive admin costs and best practices from other programs.
There are a few moving parts here worth expanding upon.
- Progressive decentralization of the DAO
- Benchmarking against other departments within the DAO
- Benchmarking against other grants departments in other protocols
(1) Progressive decentralization of the DAO
Our understanding is that the vision for the future of the DAO is that it be as lean as possible to manage the core products of Olympus. An analogy here might be the Linux Foundation, which has few workers, and most contributions to the Linux ecosystem happen from outside the Foundation. A step in that direction is having Working Groups, such as Grants, be responsible for their own budget, receive authority from the tokenholders to run/renew the program and with the DAO having oversight, auditing and holding WG's accountable (this is a rough overview of how a 'Leadership Council' might play out). The proposed budget of $180k sits within that context and comes out of consultation with Shadow (who is proposed to oversee budget within the Leadership Council framework) as well as strategos and leads of other departments/WG's within the DAO. Having WG's manage their own budgets, which they receive authority for from the token holders, then allows for more predictable budgeting throughout the DAO.
To break that budget down it assumes there is a 3 month remit via OIP and then a month between the end of the OIP and a renewal of the program. For example Grants had this OIP prepared by March 16th on the day the period outlined in OIP-55 concluded. We then need to factor in that the consultation process through the DAO can take time - this is the nature of decentralised organisations - but it would be good if we could work as a DAO to refine the consultation processes so that there's a tighter turn around. Assuming then this amount needs to cover 4 months this is $45k per month, which is lower than the average cost of similarly sized departments in the DAO. Grants comp costs in March came to 39k USD. We've left some room for movement as there is currently some restructuring happening around Marketing which may mean that marketing budget needs to be allowed for within WG's.
(2) Benchmarking against other departments within the DAO
As touched upon in point (1). Average cost of grants department was below average for comparable departments in the DAO. The budget of $180k requires that we budget for 4 months and ensure we remain below average compared to similar sized departments in the DAO.
(3) Benchmarking against other grants departments in other protocols
This is an interesting one. Our grants department is about the equivalent of 4 contributors full time. Compared purely on that level we're comparable to most other grants departments of major protocols with a few notable caveats
a. many grants departments have legal departments that they can pass all contract related work to (drafting contracts, due diligence with grantees, arranging payment details, archiving and documentation of all materials in a legally robust way in case of future audits relating to regulators etc). currently this is done internally within the grants team
b. the purpose of OlympusDAOs grants department is to Grow the EconOHMy; expand the ecosystem & increase EconOHMy GDP, Activate the ecosystem - Reduce friction for building in the econOHMy, Quantify Olympus’ Value Proposition - Establish Olympus Grants as a strong Web3 or crypto brand. This mission goes deeper than just writing cheques and leaving builders to build (which is the predominant approach taken by many grants departments in the space). The grants department seeks to approach the program through the lens of (3,3) and to make sure each project that we support compounds on work of other grantees and of the other departments within the DAO and the network of partners which Olympus is building up.
c. As a department a core value is decentralisation. In line with Olympus aspiring to be a leader in the field of decentralisation we want to go above and beyond what other grants departments are doing. We've listened to the shortcomings and critiques of other programs and built out processes which are designed to assist in the success of the grantees and to make sure their work is folded in to expanding the econOHMy.
Thanks for the feedback @tex lmk if there's anything which you feel needs covering more.