- Edited
Quick note on me. I'm wollemi, one of the initiators of the grants program and have been contributing to incubator since it's inception. I've been contributing to Olympus full time since mid October.
Thanks Tex for pulling this together and to everyone who has been involved in discussions and thinking which has gotten us to this stage of the conversation.
I agree with the points made by @tex @seijaku @FoxMaison @cpt_zeke @Bigbabol @Mark11 @davoice321 @Appleseed @Dropkickdarren . I would like to see Mark11's iteration have enough time for people to consider and discuss before this proposal moves to temperature check.
The main difference in opinion that I have compared to some of the people I have @ mentioned in the previous paragraph is that I don't think this proposal should be split into more than one vote. The mental model that I am using here is that this proposal outlines a new working group. We have governance prior art with the establishment of working groups such as Incubator (OIP-41) and Grants (OIP-55). Each of these working group OIP were proposed with a council with the remit of establishing the working group over a ~3 month period and then reporting back to the community. My suggestion would be that we follow this pattern.
Establishing a Working Group is intense work that takes time and in my opinion many of the points raised in discussion so far require deeper work to answer satisfactorily. From my experience of working with the people nominated they are as excellent candidates to do this foundational work as you will find in the DAO.
I've been working in the crypto sector since 2012 and so have seen many projects attempt the path towards decentralisation. What attracted me to contributing to Olympus was what I perceived, from the outside, via posts such as 'The Gensis DAO' (written by Zeus over a year ago!!), as earnest attempts to decentralize power to the various stakeholders in the community. As Tex outlined in his first comment to his OP the path to decentralisation is prone with execution risk and also takes time (Maker and Synthetix > 2yrs). It has also been my observation over the last 10 years in the space that one path towards decentralisation are temporary centralised formations. This has also been my observation from 20+ years in economic cooperatives. Deploying centralised formations on the path to further decentralisation can seem counter intuitive, but if it is done in service of making processes, roles and accountability more transparent, more measurable so that the systems, processes, roles and accountability can then be further decentralised - then it can be a powerful tool in our toolbox. Or a stepping stone, as Tex puts it. We just need to be careful with the shadow side of deploying centralised formations that they can tend towards consolidations of power that can be difficult to shift. To that end I am really looking forward to Mark11's iterations.
In closing, what we're attempting is hard, but worthwhile. All roads towards decentralisation will have risks, which we'll have to continue to be transparent and honest about - but which we're left with no option but to attempt if we're serious about becoming a Decentralised Reserve Currency.
