What Would Ideal Community-Led Governance for Octant Look Like?

[james]

@Abundance

I’d like to suggest though that there is another aspect to the crypto ecosystems which is not discussed as often: growing the ecosystem itself by funding public goods outside of crypto. If there is one Epoch per year where the Octant community decides on a particular theme (science, climate, geographic location, etc.) and then “normies” apply for funding, that can help grow the ecosystem as a whole (as well as improve its image)

This is on our radar! Running either a theme in an Octant Epoch, or a large community round for non profits / web2 charities is something we are discussing heavily internally. Maybe we can bridge that conversation outward to everyone to gather feedback and alternative ideas!

[thedevanshmehta]

@james

Running either a theme in an Octant Epoch, or a large community round for non profits / web2 charities is something we are discussing heavily internally

This is a great idea! I have some thoughts on this question based on learnings from my startup VoiceDeck, which is trying to take web3 funding structures to investigative reporting and citizen journalism media outlets in the real world.

The main one is to not make it a one way street : that octant funds these projects and they happily utilize the funding and this is the end of the story.

instead, have some requirement of them minting some artifact of theirs onchain (could be their database, annual impact reports, etc). When we then give funds to them, it results in an exchange between the artifact they created and funds we send them.

Reason being, our intention is not just to fund impact but also bring them onchain in a more meaningful way. we also want to redefine the relationship of grantor - grantee to that of product - customer.

Secondly, try to have some crowdsourced evaluation of the artifact they want to bring onchain. I’ve been doing some interesting work with GPT4 on quantifying the outcomes listed in an impact report which would be interesting to present to the organizations for feedback (and also potentially add value to the artifact they create).

Thirdly, to allocate enough resources for guiding them on the onramp and offramp (using tools like endaoment, every.org etc). Our goal with this initiative should not be just for them to process funds received via octant, but be the spark of their new crypto fundraising strategy.

Hope that’s meaty enough to chew on!

[Abundance]

@thedevanshmehta

instead, have some requirement of them minting some artifact of theirs onchain (could be their database, annual impact reports, etc). When we then give funds to them, it results in an exchange between the artifact they created and funds we send them.

Oh I like this idea! Would just want to add that whatever the onchain activity is, it should be a simple one. Bridging between networks and minting artifacts may be straightforward to us but it may be quite taxing for someone who’s never interacted with a blockchain before. So if we can make the UX of the activity not too overwhelming (and not the main focus of the PGF), perhaps we can effectively onboard a few Regens into the ecosystem (and attract others to do the same).

[james]

@thedevanshmehta

instead, have some requirement of them minting some artifact of theirs onchain (could be their database, annual impact reports, etc). When we then give funds to them, it results in an exchange between the artifact they created and funds we send them.

Maybe I’m missing your point but wouldn’t this be the idea behind hypercerts?

@thedevanshmehta

Secondly, try to have some crowdsourced evaluation of the artifact they want to bring onchain. I’ve been doing some interesting work with GPT4 on quantifying the outcomes listed in an impact report which would be interesting to present to the organizations for feedback (and also potentially add value to the artifact they create).

Of course I am interested in this

@thedevanshmehta

Thirdly, to allocate enough resources for guiding them on the onramp and offramp (using tools like endaoment, every.org etc). Our goal with this initiative should not be just for them to process funds received via octant, but be the spark of their new crypto fundraising strategy.

How do you envision this working in practice?

[smith.a]

Hi @James and the rest of the thread, dropping in to add my thoughts and questions from a different background (e.g., from the perspective of a PG represenative).

Participatory grantmaking research as a potential space to explore
A lot of work has been done in the traditional philanthropic world about what is called “participatory grantmaking.” It’s all about resource allocation that is based on community + grantee’s input, need, feedback, and ongoing participation in the grant making process. Of course there are many ideas you’ve already articulated in this thread and elsewhere in this research, but looking at the lessons learned in traditional philanthropy may be another useful angle from which to consider participation – not just from community members, but also from grantees / PGs.

How do you define PGs that benefit from Octant allocation funding?
Are they members of the community? Are they beneficiaries only? Are they stakeholders in the governance framework? It’s potentially a complex question. If you have PGs benefiting from allocated funds also defining governance policies and procedures, is there a conflict of interest? Or, if PGs aren’t participating in this process, is there a potential to create a system that becomes prohibitive for PGs instead of generative?

I’ll take myself for an example. I represent the Tor Project as a PG that receives Octant allocations. I also think the Tor community has experience to share as a PG that has stood the test of time – and we could add some diverse perspectives to these conversations. But I’m not sure where we stand as a funded PG. Community member? Or PG that shouldn’t be involved in governance conversations. I think getting clear on that could be helpful to encourage participation.

[james]

@smith.a

but looking at the lessons learned in traditional philanthropy may be another useful angle from which to consider participation – not just from community members, but also from grantees / PGs.

I’m definitely interested in learning more about what you mean here!

@smith.a

How do you define PGs that benefit from Octant allocation funding?
Are they members of the community? Are they beneficiaries only? Are they stakeholders in the governance framework? It’s potentially a complex question. If you have PGs benefiting from allocated funds also defining governance policies and procedures, is there a conflict of interest? Or, if PGs aren’t participating in this process, is there a potential to create a system that becomes prohibitive for PGs instead of generative?

While I do agree that its a hard question to pin down, I think there are definitely ways in which we can see when conflicts of interest or bad intentions are afoot. But you do bring up a great point, because just this morning I had a call with another team that wanted to become more involved but were afraid of voicing opinions that might seen as self interested or preserving. So I really appreciate you sharing your perspectives on this!

@smith.a

I’ll take myself for an example. I represent the Tor Project as a PG that receives Octant allocations. I also think the Tor community has experience to share as a PG that has stood the test of time – and we could add some diverse perspectives to these conversations. But I’m not sure where we stand as a funded PG. Community member?

I look at all participants, including the core team, as community members. And I can assure you that the core team, and most likely the broader community, would find whatever you have to share extremely valuable. I think reputation has a big role to play here, and projects like yours in my opinion already have strong credibility.

Additionally, you’ll notice there are other project representatives here that are also sharing their thoughts: @cerv1 from Hypercerts & OSS, @CoachJ & @Sov from Gitcoin, @petheth from MetaGame just to name a few, and I am grateful for everything they and others shared.

So thank you for asking this question, but we at Octant want to inspire an open dialogue, and so if you, or other grant recipients of Octant have something to share, please do so!

[smith.a]

@james

I look at all participants, including the core team, as community members. And I can assure you that the core team, and most likely the broader community, would find whatever you have to share extremely valuable. I think reputation has a big role to play here, and projects like yours in my opinion already have strong credibility.

Additionally, you’ll notice there are other project representatives here that are also sharing their thoughts: @cerv1 from Hypercerts & OSS, @CoachJ & @Sov from Gitcoin, @petheth from MetaGame just to name a few, and I am grateful for everything they and others shared.

That’s great, and I’m happy to contribute!

[durgadas]

There are two basic perspectives here:

1. What Octant itself values
2. What each participant in Octant’s system values

Reducing factors down to Who Got Funds is a poor way to govern or recognize or speak about either one of those things since it’s a kind of yes/no thing, followed by a You Value Me This Much factor, based on how much you get.

What none of these things take into account are the variety of possible motivations or expressions one wishes to be known or heard. This is as true for #1 as it is for #2.

So there are different types of wealth, and there are different constraints one might want to express when giving or leading as is natural in the “giving away money” role. What a community or project might want or need is likely to not be expressed merely in receiving funds.

Sharma: The 8 Forms of Wealth

Since rewards and punishments are fundamentally forms of manipulating behavior, I think it important to comprehensively inventory Octant’s motivations for giving away this money and the ways in which it wants to give that money away.

Knowing all this, I, as a participant in the system of receiving funds, cannot ethically participate in funding rounds without fully understanding whether or not my project adheres to what they seek out of it.

In knowing this broader aspect, I can also therefore more accurately ask for what I need, as I would judge my needs based on an eightfold multifaceted approach rather than just “transfer funds to me.”

I would then ask better and more relevant questions of myself and of Octant. This would also help in developing metrics to determine quality receivers of these funds and other types of wealth.

[james]

Thanks for this writeup, as you and I already discussed together, bringing a lot more intentionality to the grants program at Octant has been on our mind, and a major point of discussion for a bit now.

While many of the problems we see currently will be solvable with the protocol and governance that is being worked on behind the scenes, I think what is really important is getting more into alignment around motivations and intention BEFORE the new tech and mechanisms are here. Inevitably, some of the things we learn prior to our new launch can help inform better decision making thereafter.