Thanks for the detailed proposal writeup @johnniecosmos! Really glad to see the Cosmos Community Pool resources being activated to be used for educating people more about the value of Cosmos Hub and clearer transparency into the dynamics of ATOM–specifically with Stargate coming up.
It might be a forgone conclusion, but I really wish I had more time to check this out before the vote went out because I had a few questions specifically about some of the action items on the proposal and also the general guidelines and precedents that may be being set with more non-technical community proposals being put forth.
As a note, I was looking at the fantastic description Gavin had put out on Community Spend Proposals (GitHub - gavinly/CosmosCommunitySpend: Cosmos community-spend proposals education & best practices).
Just for the sake of getting a bit more clarity, could we address some of these topics?
- Dedicated time for comments on proposals before vote submission
- How the amount requested was decided and arrived at
- Clearer KPI measurements
- Checks and balances on the governance committee (or if it is even possible or reasonable in this situation)
- Clear steps on conflicts of interest
- Action item separation (media influencer)
Finally, I would love to see if there could potentially be an amendments process or new companion proposals that can address some of these clarifications!
Was there a particular reason that this proposal was rushed out with 2 days of comments? I have to apologize that I wasn’t able to dive in immediately when the proposal came out in the forum or follow the lengthy conversations on the Telegram.
Would it be possible to have amounts vary or adjusted after the fact? The initial amount seemed quite high. Perhaps there could have been more communication and engagement from the community on how much and where it would be used. The breakdown here (Draft Governance Proposal for a Community Pool Spend: Proposal #34 - Luna Mission - Funding $ATOM - #3 by johnniecosmos) was very helpful, thanks!
Could there be clear KPIs measured and communicated to the community or as the governance committee tracks it? I think transparency here with the community would be extremely helpful! I was some of the comments that others had asked on how metrics would be tracked, but with KPIs it would be important to understand success/failure and consequences of those–especially if there is a particular campaign and it doesn’t seem to reach sufficient numbers we could track and cut it out before we continue needlessly.
Checks and Balances.
I’m not sure this is even possible, but it seems like the formation of the governance committee just moved the decision making process up a level to a smaller cohort of chosen members that may speed things up a lot, but may exclude valid community comments or requests. Would it be possible to have some formal way of communicating community comments or checks/balances in case there is an issue that may arise? For example, if the governance committee chooses to choose a portion of the funds for a specific crypto-influencer to market ATOMs but a community member has information of that influencer that may damage the reputation of Cosmos, it would be great to have open hearings for that type of discussion or situation. I realize this may just be an infinite level after level of decision making, but it would be great to have some sort of formalized checks and balances–just in case.
Conflicts of Interest.
I think that the current governance committee members are great and significant contributing members to the Cosmos ecosystem from what i’ve been seeing and following. I don’t doubt that they have the best interests at heart, but could it possibly be seen that there may have been some conflicts of interest here, in the set up and execution? I guess this goes a bit into the technicalities because I think the group chosen is a solid and great group, but how it was chosen and how votes are done may have some issues to people looking in?
What I mean is that on certain proposals, shouldn’t we have it so that anyone who puts together a proposal should not be part of the voting set? I know this may be impossible via pseudonymous addresses being used to signal or sign–but there are at least validators verified on-chain that can signal or withhold voting for neutrality or due process purposes.
Just for theory’s sake. It would be great to address the fact that a conflict of interest could exist if the proposer can affect the direction of the proposal–and specifically since the community’s Atoms are at stake. This could mean anything from how much members are being compensated (though it is specifically relatively small here, but the concept may hold for cases) to how can we be sure that there weren’t prior backdoor dealings for fund usage and other 3rd parties that could or would be involved? Or if there weren’t any biases due to affiliations with the authors of the proposal and the governance committee members. A conflict of interest can occur when a divergence develops between an individual’s private interests and his/her professional obligations. This involves the situation in which an independent observer may reasonably question the decisions as non-neutral and deemed to aid in personal gain.
To break some of the concept down. There can be primary interests which are the crux of the proposal and secondary interests that exist to possibly serve both the primary and personal interests. Secondary interests are not wrong but can become objectionable if they’re believed to have greater weight than the primary interests.
In this case, how can we be certain that there are no secondary interests that may weigh much heavier than that of the primary interests. In this specific case, the primary interests being the understanding of Atoms and potential secondary interests being potential prior agreements or biased relationships. Just to be clear, I’m not saying that these exist, but if there is an ironclad way of proving to the world that we can show no conflict of interest, then any criticism that we, as the Cosmos Community, might face will fall flat because we took responsible steps here.
Action Item Separation.
At face value there were some action items that may be seen by some members of the community and external observers that were a bit questionable and that could have some requested modifications while other action items are fine. I know that time has already passed on proposal draft modifications because this is already gone to a vote, but it could possibly have been better if these action items could have been separated into different proposals so that people could choose or request to modify them. Having all these action items under one proposal would necessitate that the proposal be rejected if someone strongly disagreed with one of the action items or begrudgingly accept it if they wanted to go ahead with the other action items and concede to accept the one action item they disagreed with. It kind of reminded me of some sort of omnibus bill where all were being accepted even if there were certain components that people took issue with…
Perhaps a suggestion to any further action item separation would be to implement some sort of quadratic funding mechanism. I know that Gitcoin integrates many networks (and I think I heard that Cosmos was getting integrated soon). But it would be really awesome if these certain action items could be matched from the Community Pool, governed by the committee, and quadratically funded with the community as a whole supporting, proportionately specific action items to determine where we thought was important.
An example I was thinking could look something like this:
Quadratic funding on usage of the 129,000 ATOM community pool war chest being requested by Proposal #34
Proposal #34 Actions are broken down into separate grants:
banner ads on CMC, Coingecko, staking rewards
Cosmos community members use a Cosmos wallet (like Keplr) to donate to each of these grants and the number of unique donations from members will apply the appropriate quadratic funding multiplier that that grant would get funded from the 129,00 ATOM warchest.
Grant access interface: Gitcoin
Funding backer: 129,000 ATOM community pool war chest
Sorry this got so long! Just pretty excited about the potentials for this campaign and want to make sure that no one can say anything bad towards us in the way we go about doing this–especially since narratives can take lives of their own in this space. It would have been really great to have had a bit more time for public comments to allow us to engage before the vote went out. Is there any possibility we can make this happen? Maybe amendments?