Proposal to establish a system for working groups

I agree with you on this. That’s why there should be the following:

  • In the initial proposal stage the actual people and their roles and responsibilities should be made clear.
  • I have seen that optimally a group of 3-5 seems most effective without being too small or large.
  • The ‘election’ of the group as a whole would be taken into account during the vote (most likely Snapshot). Electing individual members for a working group seem a bit too cumbersome at this point.

Yes! That’d be optimal.

Something crossed my mind while looking at proposals for the formation of working groups. Should a multi-stage process need to occur for the formalization and commencement of one?

In other words:

Stage 1 - initial proposal on Discourse + poll
Stage 2 - formal proposal on Snapshot
Stage 3 (I would not recommend this for now, because of the economic cost of voting unless this was critical) - DAO vote

This seems like a good idea. It would definitely give people the chance to post a draft that can be adjusted with community feedback.
Then go to snapshot and make it official, after the proposal has been tweaked and all the details figured out.

Stage 3 should only come in for WGs working directly with the PCV or the like, in my opinion.

Interesting, but I do not read anything about education, which I think should not be undervalued. People will need to seek out alternatives to the USD and need to understand how this works in order to make reasonable decisions.

1 Like

It seems to me that all groups should have a standardized reporting timing system.
For example: intermediate - weekly.
Globally - once a month.

Decided to post this here as it feels like a better place to give visibility to this concept.

To be able to keep these workgroups true to the purpose, we need necessary amount of visibility into 2 things.

1-The roadmap, long term vision & key values of the protocole beyond what’s mentioned in medium articles & whitepaper. I am sure these were mapped before going to VC’s. What are the short & long term expected hurdles? Any contingency plan in order in case of unforseen regulatory action? Are there any promises to be aware of? Any specific opportunity the team saw initially? Any feature or development commitment locked in with VC’s?

All of the above will be needed to have informed desicions on the future of the protocole on all the WG’s mentioned above. We need to align on a roadmap and the roadmap goes thru all the above.

2-Financial Transparency
The tokenomics does not mention much beyond genesis, presale team & advisor fund distribution. Not much info is available regarding funds distribution for the operational health of the protocole. Such as Marketing, talent, partnerships. ETC. Some might be covered in VC funding, some may not… Dont know that part very well. Might also not need to know. All that will highly likely to impact how the PCV should be diversified, this should be made transparent (or transparent enough if there are other considerations) To give way to a better diversification & budgeting for all WG’s. Budgeting is the core of a diversification excercise. Maybe that WG should finish their initial work to give way to others?

For all the WG’s to act on the aligned long term goals of the protocole we need to be able to take “informed desicions” This information will be crucial especially before diversification of the PCV as that diversification will mean certain commitments that might be more expensive to turn back from.

Hope the above makes sense & have a great day/night whichever side of the pond you are :slight_smile:


I agree with you on this.

I think that the core team should publish or at least make known what the long term vision and strategy is (different than a roadmap) so that we know where Fei is to concentrate efforts (eg is Fei supposed to be a lending platform?) as ‘the stablecoin for DeFi’ is too vague.
Once the ‘why’ or values of the protocol has been set, then the WGs should work towards long term alignment of this.

I also agree with you that the Operational aspects of the DAO and how funds are distributed is opaque at this point. I hope that the team can clarify how they intend to keep Fei running. (Perhaps we need an Operations WG for this?)


(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)