Hi @jaekwon , first and foremost: thank you for your time engaging in this discussion, your perspective is deeply appreciated. The below post contains some responses to your above post, particularly in regards to DAO driven funding models. Given @zaki_iqlusion’s comments above, I feel that there is additional room to address these points within the scope of the proposed ATOM 2.0 whitepaper.
#1
As I understand it, a key mandate of the ATOM 2.0 whitepaper is to “[…] provide a general specification for DAOs to self-describe their organizational structure and relationships with one another.” As such, given this component, there is no reason to assume that all funding activities that occur on the hub need to follow a centralized planning model. If the primitives for delegating authority and allocating funds are sufficiently powerful, the ratification of loosely connected organizational cells can result in the utilization of a variety of incentive models without sacrificing accountability. For example, it is very reasonable to expect a hybrid model to arise in which funding possibilities range from specific sector funding granted by a panel of experts to a massive quadratic fund which is open to all participants, each within a separate DAO funding container on the Hub.
#2
I will refrain from commenting on the amount of treasury inflation from the whitepaper, because I do feel that there is a larger design space to consider for this token emission than the method outlined. However I do think that this is also addressed by the above point that the funding model you envision is unnecessarily narrow, and needn’t be if the tooling is sufficient to implement more complex models (which it currently is not).
#3
I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment that it is better to have more funding available after our collective intelligence improves. However, it may be worth noting that the token value is probably expected to increase and so the majority of emissions are front-loaded in order to achieve higher $ value funding for projects to kickstart the flywheel.
#5
While it is true that they are already incentivized, that incentivization lacks expressive coordination tooling. The “Cosmos Economic Engine” (Section 4.2) driven by the funding mechanisms briefly outlined above would create infinitely more long term value for ATOM stakeholders than the current model. Additionally, it would ensure long-term and predictable alignment.
Thank you for your thoughts and attention as well as those that maintain this forum. May it continue to engender constructive long-form discussion that leads to better outcomes for the Cosmos.