Community Oversight Member Elections: Meet the Candidates

Conversation AADAO
4

Hi,
I’m Grace.

Thank you to the AADAO members for advancing me to the finals!

Whether happy or unhappy with AADAO, every Cosmonaut should care for oversight in how 980k $ATOM is managed/used. Particularly when AADAO is evolving to include early venture financing in their activities.

The elected member shouldn’t be a Dao shill or simp. But a reasonable skeptic. Not a micromanager. Rather, a guardrail.

There’s only one candidate in this race with direct experience in advocating concerns productively on behalf of the community, resulting in discontinuation of funding for a problematic grantee. And that candidate is me.

In the interest of transparency and full disclosure, last December, AADAO reached out to me to gauge my interest in joining their Oversight Committee. Given my history of forthright criticism—ranging from semi-pathological skepticism to substantiated doubts re their programming and operations, their exploratory invite to chat was definitely unexpected and surprising.

Despite our polite, yet awkward relationship, discussions proceeded with the involvement of @Better_Future and @Youssef. During these talks, I asked them to allow the community to express its preference for the third member of the Oversight Committee through a more democratic process.

Now, four months later, we’re on the cusp of Cosmos’ first election! I applaud AADAO for its dedication to enhance its accountability, with the added relationship goal of strengthening ties with community stakeholders. Regardless of the outcome, I am confident that the committee will gain a highly qualified member (see above and see below).

The prevalent mistrust within our ecosystem cripples organizational effectiveness and is a kind of net negative for Cosmos brand equity and culture. If we want $ATOM to do better, we need to remove distrust driven operational inefficiencies and negative feedback loops. I see this role as pivotal in restoring confidence in Cosmos’ institutions, and I appreciate your consideration of my candidacy for Community Liaison on AADAO’s Oversight Committee.

Introduction

I was drawn to blockchain because I believe decentralized and permissionless tech can redo value chains, providing greater distributive justice for creatives and securing creators’ control over their intellectual properties.

My journey with Cosmos began as Head of Product Strategy, for Pylons Tech, Tendermint Ventures’ first incubated project. Subsequently, I was Head of Growth at NFTOasis, and Vice President of Public Pressure an NFT music marketplace building in Kusama/Polkadot. I was lured back to Cosmos with the opportunity to serve as Head of Growth & Strategy for Ignite, Inc., which was (then) constituted as an independent product division to be spun out of All in Bits (AIB).

Although my stint at Ignite proved to be challenging — Hobbes might describe it as “nasty, brutish, and short” — I value the trials and experiences that fortified my resolve and character.

I share this experience as proof of my commitment to advocating for what I believe to be right, based on the principles I believe that apply.

If we aim to develop superior distributed and decentralized systems, we must cultivate not only better practices and processes but also foster a community capable of rigorous oversight that doesn’t depend on moral courage to get the job done.

Transparency without accountability is a car without wheels—it won’t go anywhere. And accountability hinges on having the right information, readily available, not just when someone shouts loud enough to be heard.

I’d like to see AADAO turn “transparency” and “accountability” from compulsory buzzwords into benchmarks. It would be great to see AADAO “incubate” practices that evince standards that can be applied for accountability regimes where they remain primitive or non existent (e.g., $ATOM Community Pool).

Below, some of my ideas on how I intend to serve effectively if elected as your community liaison to the Oversight Committee.

I. Provide Sharper, Smarter, Cleaner Information

  1. Improvements to AADAO website: Enhance navigation for intuitive information discovery, especially on the dashboard page. Synchronize dashboard data with significant quarterly announcements.
  2. Create Applicant/Grantee specific dashboards. Dashboards will clearly display each applicant’s/grantee’s details, including name, entity, designated POC, purpose of grant, requested funding amount, approved funding amount, status and etc. Additionally, pending on applicant/grantee consent, links to complete or redacted applications can be provided. Making this information publicly available ensures that the organization’s processes are open and accountable, allowing everyone to understand Grant Committee’s selection history and criteria. For more on what can be done with dashboards, please see: Community Oversight Member Elections: Meet the Candidates - #18 by Cosmos_Nanny
  3. DaoDao integration – link all grant disbursement information on dashboards with DaoDao for on chain verification.
  4. Boost data visibility and functionality: Make buttons actually do something useful. Implement keyword searches to navigate multiple dashboards
  5. Visual analytics: Create interactive dashboards. Create better visualizations for KPIs, and supermetrics.
  6. Create an AADAO Oversight Github – upload datasets for all AADAO applicants and grantees.
  7. Establish COIs policies and protocols as it pertains to the conduct of AADAO contributors and affiliated orgs. And publish Dao policies and practices to mitigate COIs. Help educate an audience inexperienced in navigating COIs to adopt best practices. Show rather than tell.

If AADAO’s too stretched to glow up the dashboard page with design and navigation improvements, I can do it, and keep the dashboard page up to date.

II. Improve Support & Resources for Unsuccessful Grant Applicants
AADAO can improve its support for unsuccessful grant applicants by adopting policies that boost transparency of its selection process while educating future applicants. Here are some suggestions to consider for implementation:

  1. Provide Constructive and Targeted Feedback. Commit to offering detailed feedback to unsuccessful applicants (especially when prompted). Provide focused answers explaining where and how the application the application materials are weak.
  2. Host Educational Webinars/“Clinics.” Schedule quarterly webinars or workshops aimed specifically at those whose proposals were not funded. These sessions should cover common errors, effective practices, and key elements of successful applications. Share reference examples of P/F submissions (with consent for release).
  3. Offer Resubmission Opportunities. Allow unsuccessful applicants to revise and resubmit their proposals based on the feedback received. Facilitate a designated period for resubmission and provide access to mentorship from experienced members of the DAO or past successful grantees.
  4. Develop an Applicant Support Portal or Chat. Create a comprehensive online portal (or host a chat) where applicants can find resources, ask questions, and get guidance. This portal should include FAQs, guides, and direct links to application tools, plus options for scheduling consultations with DAO staff or volunteers from successful past applicants. An AADAO chat can help build a community forum and or network where current and prospective applicants can share ideas, receive peer feedback, and collaborate.

III. Standardize and Communicate the Process for Reassessing Grant Awards

Last September, AADAO tasked me to gather and address both personal and community concerns regarding the joint grant approved for Missions Publiques and RnDAO (category: governance, tooling, and infrastructure).

My report detailed the significant challenges and potential untenability of the grantees’ proposal to use sortition-based methods to form “deliberative” citizen assemblies. This analysis was presented to the Grants and Oversight Committee members on September 19th. I do not know, and will not assume how much the report factored into the subsequent decision to halt grantees’ funding. The discontinuation decision was announced in AADAO’s 4th Transparency Report, citing the project team’s failure to publish its participant selection methodology on time and a lack of community support as key reasons for discontinuation.

Section 10 of the referenced Transparency Report also condemned “Ad hominem attacks, baseless criticisms, and conspiracy theories,” noting that such behavior detracts from a constructive community atmosphere. I concur and believe that such attacks have no place. However, these attacks are also symptomatic of community frustration over feeling unheard. Currently, the absence of a formal grant reassessment process exacerbates this issue. The role of the Third Member is to bridge this gap by vetting and verifying substantive concerns with prioritized review and attention from AADAO.

To improve speed to transparency and accountability in funding processes, I propose the following enhancements:

  1. Identify and Articulate Events Triggering Reassessment: Precisely delineate the circumstances that may precipitate a reassessment of funding, including instances of performance deficiencies, ethical violations, or misrepresentations by grantees.
  2. Create a Reassessment Template: Develop a standardized template for users to formally request a reassessment of a grant. This template will guide users through the necessary documentation and rationale needed to initiate a review.
  3. Establish AADAO Oversight Github Repository : This repository will not only house SQL files for the dashboards we create but also serve as a public database containing all pertinent information about applicants and grantees. Encourage community members to utilize the Reassessment Template available in the repository to systematically structure and submit substantiated concerns about applicants or grantees, whether pre-award or post-award, through the ‘Issues’ feature.

These measures are suggested to streamline the reassessment process, ensuring that it is transparent, orderly, fair, and responsive to various stakeholder needs. By organizing these steps, we can mitigate frustration and encourage more constructive conversations in our ecosystem.

IV. Availability & Communication with the Community

  • Will provide written monthly updates in the AADAO Oversight Github repo, and share links here in forum and other relevant community channels I help manage, Cosmonaut HQ chat in Telegram, in particular.

  • I have been managing and moderating the Cosmonaut HQ chat in Telegram for the past 13 months. This chat has evolved to be an adjacent forum for community members, particularly as it relates to AADAO announcements and operations. While I will continue to monitor and be present in this chat – if elected, I will publish a fixed schedule for “oversight office hours.” This organized approach ensures consistent and predictable accessibility for the community, while helping me manage my time commitments efficiently. Of course, in the event of an urgent issues arise, I will attend to the relevant issue as soon as possible.

Looking forward to discussing any and all of the above in forthcoming spaces.

Should you be an AADAO grantee, or past grant applicant – curious to hear about your experience, and any constructive feedback you may have to improve the oversight function.

I can be reached at TG, @CosmosNanny.

Cheers,
Grace

11 Likes