I think AADAO is a business development organization, whereas All In Bits and Interchain Foundation are mostly software development shops. I think it makes sense for these functions to be done by different organizations. Is there any reason why business promoters would be talking to the devs? They are selling whatever is out there already.
You either delegate some type of work or don’t. I am not sure Cosmos Hub stakers and validators would have the understanding of all the various early stage projects that AADAO would want to fund. It is hard for the average person to understand complicated early stage projects. People don’t have the time to do research or even the cognitive capacity to picture something theoretical and complicated. Furthermore, is it even possible to add this new governance burden onto voters? You seem to think Cosmos Hub stakers have a full time job of voting on proposals and you can just throw in more work load. People on the Cosmos Hub want to vote Cosmos Hub things. Whether to fund Stride or not, or for that matter Composable Finance is way out of their mandate. Even validators won’t have the capacity to research and answer this stuff. Are validators running computer equipment or are they venture capitalists?
I think some early validators think of themselves as venture capitalists or maybe live in Silicon Valley and think everybody else in the world is like them. They are not. Most people aren’t VCs. That’s why in the real world they block of a sum of money for VC investments and hand it over to a VC to manage.
Organizations have departments for those different activities, if All in Bits or Interchain Foundation was a DAO maybe called a working group or something. It seems they do more than just business development. Having common back-office tools that creates the transparency everyone seems to be concerned about would be a healthy development for the ecosystem.
Hi @Lil_D, thanks for your feedback. We appreciate your mindset of protecting ATOM community, that has been our mindset too. We believe we have robust answers to each of the points, and at same time, we do want to consider your perspective fully and thoughtfully to make sure we haven’t missed anything. My email address is: betterfuture2040@gmail.com, if you’d like to reach out there.
Indeed, we have to be VERY VERY carefull for potential conflicts of interest… With the issuing of grants with this kind of money, milions of $ worth… We have to be VERY VERY careful. Especially with the history and following bad reputation Cosmos/Atom already has with this.
@StakeLab We canceled the Growth SubDAO following numerous feedback, both public and private.
We have 4 full time positions to fill in the next 3 months: Grant Lead, Developer, Technical Product Lead and Marketing Lead. Once this is all completed, AADAO will have 8 full time contributors and 5 part time.
Following the pause on the Growth subDAO, we’ve revised the marketing budget from 575 to 175K. We’ve designed our marketing so that it always serves the Hub first, AADAO in second. The original amount of 575K was to run full scale marketing campaigns and major sponsorship events as part of the Growth SubDAO on behalf of the Hub.
We intend to launch a discussion here on the forum in the coming weeks to brainstorm on how the Hub should market itself (Marketing, BD, partnerships) and what parties should be involved in driving those initiatives forward. Prior to that, a shared narrative should be agreed on: is it AEZ? Is it ATOM as interchain money? It’s important we as a community align on this prior to spending major $ in promotion and marketing.
AEZ is a subset of ATOM as interchain money as such I think you want to market the broader theme. I know “ATOM as money” messaging is piggy backing off Bitcoin and Ethereum money narratives (Bankless), but positioning ATOM as the 3rd major crypto capital asset behind BTC and ETH would be best ROI. Cosmos tech is 3rd biggest ecosystem in crypto and the token advertising should reflect that and try to build out an investor and consumer mindshare that corresponds to that. Solana is trying to insert itself in the 3rd place and Cosmos should be contesting that narrative. It has bigger developer and user adoption and bigger total market cap for the ecosystem.
ATOM as IBC money, the interop/bridging or “interchain” money is incredibly powerful messaging especially after the last 2-3 years of massive bridge hacks on various Ethereum bridges. The marketing should be capitalizing on that and highlighting IBC technology’s status as the ultimate bridging technology and thus the best way to capture the growth of the totality of the overall blockchain ecosystem.
Hi,
can you give a clearer example of the oversight for the workforce e.g. 60% full time in regards with the payment brackets. Which non-related entity is taking account and which escalation routes, comms and what delegations to revision does this oversight have?
Thanks in advance
