0x289715ff…c84fsent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#22,226,020·view on Etherscan
@0x6a02...80F4
gm folks - seeing feedback about our focus. i want to be clear: it should only take a month or two to implement the revnets experiment. we're not betting the entire future of flows on whether it works or not. it won't block us from continuing to improve the core protocol.
we still plan to spend the majority of our time on improving the core platform, including solving for everything volky mentioned. actually planning to prioritize most of those items first
>
>
> I think this proposal is taking flows in the wrong direction. Revnets is an unproven mechanism, and there's no data (neither real-world usage or simulations) to support the claim that it will bring in more funding and collaboration.
>
> I fear that we have many insidious problems in the protocol that need to be addressed before we double down on the current design:
>
> ## Transparency/readability
>
> Flows is very opaque right now. We don't have the dashboards we need to make sense of the data, track trends and trust that it's evolving sustainably.
>
> If anything, the feedback from several builders that they're not getting enough seems to indicate it's not sustainable. It might be best to direct more funding to fewer projects with wider impact (public goods) instead of spreading it out too thin.
>
> Visualizing those trends is essential to make the right calls. I don't know if you have those dashboards for yourself, or if you track that data, but it should be available to the DAO.
>
> ## Low curation activity
>
> I don't think flows is being curated nearly enough. I think some design decisions impose most of the work on curators, and there's not enough incentive for them to do it:
> - submissions being default approved if not challenged
> - the lack of a unified dashboard to quickly review all flows you can vote on
> - an in-app feed with the actual fc posts from the builders so you can review the updates they're posting. The AI summaries are noisy and not helpful IMO
> - Brewing conflicts: the challenge process pits builders against curators and makes challenging flows a VERY unpleasant experience.
>
> I think this last one is especially worrisome. I see many builders ranting about being challenged, and I think no curator wants to deal with that, so you'll see less and less activity from them.
>
> At the end of the day, curation is A LOT of work to do, and I think more of the burden should be shifted towards people that are getting the grants.
>
> Making it too easy to get your flow approved (only requires lack of curator oversight), and too difficult to cancel (stressful a laborious challenging process) favors the accumulation of low-quality flows and spreads the funds out too thin. I think there needs to be recurrent (monthly) opt-ins by curators to keep a flow up instead.
>
> ## Conflicts of interest
>
> Several voters are currently being funded by flows. There couldn't be a more explicit conflict of interest with the DAO than that.
>
> Not saying we should try and fix it in the protocol, but I would at least expect as a social norm that flows grantees abstain from voting on flows props. (Nouncil included)
>
> ---
>
> I would be supportive of another prop addressing those problems. I don't think this one is focusing on the core issues.
>
> I also encourage you to split the props between one that requests more funds to keep flows going (only requires directional support from the DAO), and another with proposed updates to the protocol (more nuanced and requires more input from the DAO).
>
> That way, it should be easier to secure the funding to ensure the continuation of flows while giving us more time to iterate and improve on the protocol. You've mentioned a lot of feedback from builders in the previous comments, but no feedback from curators at all.
>