The basic idea is to have a completely open and transparent environment for integrations.
Step 1: Segregating target defi protocols as Tier 1, Tier 2, etc.
Step 2: Deciding on nature and amount of bounties to be awarded according to different Tiers. Dedicating a portion of the DAO Tribe or the PCV specifically to integrations.
Step 3: A bounty hunter leaderboard to provide further transparency and to promote some healthy competition. We can further award board leaders on a weekly/monthly/yearly basis.
My thinking is that we minimize any kinds of rules and regulations to govern this, let this run like the wild west. We can have individual community members or even working groups taking part. This way we can target multiple integrations in a shorter time frame and also utilize the networking skills of our community. Bounties will also incentivize developers of other protocols to work on integrating with us. We have previously seen developers from some notable projects participate in discussions on the Discord.
I invite the community to post their thoughts on this, especially @Brianna as I believe she will be the member from the core-team over seeing this in some way.
And also @DioDionysos and @Meertitan as they were already working on a WG for integrations.
Thank you @siddharth for starting this discussion.
I am worried that our partners would not like being put into ālow tierā. When naming these tiers let us maybe think about it as priority based and make sure that it can not be considered as a grading for a certain protocol.
Yes, makes sense. These have to be differentiated as not all PCV investments can be approached in the same way, we would approach partnerships or integrations for a stable coin.
I am not too sure about this part. Think about it. Do we really want to partner with any protocol? I think it would be better if the partner has at least some interest in Fei Protocol. Also if people approach us our conditions for negotiations might be better.
And if we go for this model, then there will need to be some level of organisation, as we do not want to spam a certain project with partnership requests. (Which could seem frivolous or shady.)
See. This is where I disagree. And we will have to see how the core team feels about this part in particular. (@Brianna)
I love the bounty board idea, and increasing transparency is a definite plus. I think it is very important to consider optics here.
I agree with @DioDionysos regarding the wild west nature. I feel these should be a controlled environment. Giving community members free reign to solicit external projects at will without oversight is non ideal. I think it is critical to utilize some form of structure (Tribe perhaps) to pursue potential leads, in conjunction with core team efforts to drive integrations.
Building on the bounty board idea, why not utilize that structure to call upon tribes to form, to solve problems? IE. A bounty is posted regarding marketing for < x > protocol. From there multiple different Tribes can bid upon the contract/bounty, and submit their plans to the community at large for a vote to determine who receives the contract. I realize this is somewhat antithetical to the ethos of this prop, but I cant shake the feeling that cutting the community loose w/o structure is dangerous.
I agree with others above that the need for a structured approach to integrations/partnerships, so I would further suggest the following:
A bounty board split instead of function (similar to Defi Pulse) that splits protocols/projects based on whether they are DEXes, Lending protocols, asset aggregators, etc.
The ātieringā be replaced by size based on TVL (you probably want to reach larger projects first so that self-organizes as priorities);
Any subgroups for individual projects to have oversight from the main partnership/integration WG.
For those which are more critical then the WG leads should tackle this together as a task force, with Brianna as necessary (yes, she will need to get involved in more critical projects).
Hard agree, a lot of protocols would probably find it very disrespectful to be put into a low tier. No need to cause any bad feelings or hostility.
This sounds like a good approach tbh, Iāll definitely keep it in mind.
This might be the best option, calling back to this post here Partnership Program: Tribes - #18 by GrantG . We could have a central coordinating group, managing the different bounty groups. As Dio and I already proposed a similar idea, we would be willing to fill that position.
What we need to avoid at all costs is a hoard of Tribe members spamming various projects with no quality control. That could lead to a really bad image for Fei Protocol.
Agree with the comments on āwild westā . Hundreds people running rampant hitting same project developers inboxes over & over again might leave a bad taste in the rest of the defi community.
The tiering concern is legitimate, but every project has priorities and those priorities might dictate something to be nr1 and another to be nr2. No shame in that. No need to call it tiers. This can be framed well enough to be politicly correct.
However also agree with the core idea of @siddharth. the need of transparent & open enviroment for ideas that turns into action. So the ideas would flourish & get into action with much needed pace. Workgroups was a great step towards this, for some reason it is going slower than expected this might be due less participation then expected perhaps. But i believe there are some core principals WGās can steal from this thinking:
-Bounty: Rewarding good behaviour for working towards the greater good of the project. Which would increase participation as well.
-Hunting: The first come first serve approach hunting analogy brings is great as it creates urgency for organising in an effective way. We need timebound tasks & topics in WGās.
-Leaderboard: An organised & aligned way to inform people on the progress of ideas being developed & implemented.
Above 3 concepts can be implemented in the workflow of the WGās in an open & transparent way. Doesnt have to be a Leaderboard, but something that drives public knowledge on whatās progressing is important for eg. Implementation of above principals would lead to WGās that are organised and communicating continously with the community towards planned touchpoints. To move onwards, creating their events, calls, meetings & group chats to drive consensus & alignment across the board. While keeping this open to public in an organised fashion.
You might say discourse topics are sort of meetings that is open to all, but unfortunately without a planned actions there is no agile sprint, without an orchestrator no music. Leaders should organise the flow of communication with actionable information for everyone involved. Announcements, votes, events, calls, discord voice chats etc. Aavegotchi DAO & Discord almost pumps out a few announcement per day driving public agenda towards ongoing goals with calls to action. Iām sure the community would feel safer seeing an announcement per day for the topics they are interested in. We see people asking for news every day over and over on discord This is mostly because thereās a feeling that everything is paused. This kind of activity would also erase that paused feeling.
Looking forward to the result of this convo & thanks @siddharth for initiating it! And iāll conclude my thoughts with the same one from PCV diversification. Without clear goals all ideas generated are simply āwishful thinkingā. We need to have a roadmap beyond firefighting ASAP to be able to even ideate on what integrations makes sense and in what way. Once there is a clear roadmap, WGās can start to layer in all needed aspects in a timely and organised fashion.
I think we will see more once the first groups have actually established themselves. If people see working examples they might become inspired to found their own groups.
In the case of the Partnership Program, the progress has been slow due to the complications with FEIās core mechanisms. I imagine the group might get green lit once the protocol is runnin on all cylinders.
What do you think of Grantās idea about a coordinating leading group, managing smaller groups that look to complete specific bounties?
Here for example I see tasks that could be managed by the aforementioned coordination WG. Furthermore they could fill the role of a connecting element between sub groups and core team, taking care of community calls regarding bounty programs and making weekly/biweekly updates on numerous bounties.
This could be a fun way to involve the rest of the community and maybe inspire people to join bounty sub groups.
Hard agree on this point, I think itās high time we get more specific about planing. @DioDionysos and me already worked on some documents regarding high quality partners, weāll post our thoughts on this once the process of group creation has moved on a bit.
Agree, but also not sure if it should wait for mechanisms to start working. WGās can keep on planning & nailing down details and doing the due dilligence while the mechanisms are being worked on. Operations & Engineering can co-exist. For this weād need to know where it is headed For eg: which integration partners are preferred due to our architecture & current commitments? Uni & Aave? Lets keep going generating shittons of ideas for this and keep sharpening until mechanisms are ready. Once they are working, we would have no reason to wait any longer This would require a roadmap to set the northstar tho.
100% for this dividing into managable & smaller chunks with sub-groups with individual bounties or whatever incentive chosen. Much like how Bruno&Eswak took initiative on the one that mattered to them the most on PCV Diversification convo. And they moved faster than average. One sub-group can chase AAVE while another can smash Compound out the park.
Wondering what is the best way to introduce sub-groups. Directly dropping them in the group for the first WGās like a jumpstart, or consolidating already made ideas + opening it up for futher proposal generation for a week tops to get community more invested in it to be a part when those ideas becomes sub-groups. What do you think?
It seems like most people are converging on a few key ideas.
A coordinating oversight WG is probably what the integrations WG should be about.
How the operations of multiple sub groups going for the same ātargetā be coordinated will need to be further fleshed out. I realize that in this case it is really down to the person doing the engagement, the reputation of said person, who the counterparty is, and the quality of the sales pitch, amongst other factors.
A framework is necessary to determine the reward structure. Again I would suggest categorizing by function of the counterparty (is it a DEX? Lending facility? Etc), the TVL, and the potential/capability of such integration leading to a measurable increase in Feiās TVL or user count.
I also think that while Fei should be fixed and proven to work before officially seeking an integration, we should at least ask for comments from the counterparty what they need to look for in Fei before they will agree to work with us. Such āpre-discussionsā are important.
Once a partnership is agreed, it will need ārelationship managementā. The sub groups will have to convert their role to this of upkeep.
I agree with the framework approach. Wonder if the framework should be based on the size of counterparty or based on individualās participation (man/hour, type of participation, etc.) Maybe a combination of both. In my mind, even voting on snapshot for a proposal by a WG can be incentivised in early stages. Would increase participation & increase alignment in community. Iāll prepare a more detailed post for this rewarding scheme topic.
Pre-discussions is a great idea! Getting feedback from wider defi community makes so much sense to land on a perfect fit product & perfectly set expectations with the potential partner.
There are members of the FEI community with extensive relationships with other applications, or are outright leaders of other projects.
I believe that for the more important integrations, the relevant folks should head their own working group dedicated to this purpose, and set a definite budget/timeline for a very focused integration goal.
The role of whatever general integrations group (if its creation is approved by the community) should primarily to advise and aid with paperwork. It would be unthinkable, for example, for anybody except for @leshner to take the lead for integration with COMP.
)
)
Fewer, bigger, better