0x6a024f52…80f4sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#22,402,694·view on Etherscan
moving-flows-forward:-a-sustainable-approach-to-public-goods-fundingWe keep trying to patch the structure while neglecting the internal culture. None of the DAOs mentioned in this proposal has a culture capable of producing revenue-generating projects.
Why do we have to delegate away the responsibility of generating revenue? This is something of a principal-agent problem:
- Nouns funds external teams/DAOs to eventually bring in some flows
- Most of them fail and just abandon the project. The team leaves Nouns bc there's no more funding. There's nobody left in the DAO with know-how of the project internals to pivot/repurpose it.
- Some of them find sustainability, but now there's no incentive for them to stick with Nouns bc they don't need the funding. They go away and do their own thing.
You're proposing we further delegate this responsibility to introduce another tier of principal-agent conflict. I'm highly skeptical that Revnets can fix those misaligned incentives.
If we want to become sustainable, we've got to do things in-house.
- we've got to fund the people who are here for the long term, not passers-by
- we've got to develop our internal organization culture to support revenue-generating projects.
We should invest more in wetware instead of hoping software saves us.
- build trust between contributors
- scale internal delegation of powers to afford efficiency
- leverage the far-reaching network of Nouns to find opportunities
- seize the opportunities internally
Organizational culture has compounding returns. If we keep neglecting it and only investing outwards, the DAO will fade away.
There's no point in deciding how Nouns will fund public goods if there's no plan for Nouns continuing to exist.
Let Optimism, Gitcoin, EF do that for now...they have the funds and a sustainable flywheel.
We can talk more about funding public goods when we figure out how to fund ourselves.