0xbe957a47…3e57sent to0xf790a5f5…1365·#24,178,696·view on Etherscan
@0xf84a...b5A8
Thanks for taking the time to engage. These are fair questions.
On compensation and accountability: I take the point. Zeroing out my compensation isn’t meant to remove accountability, but to remove ambiguity around incentives. I'm new here and yet to prove myself. By far the greatest pushback when soliciting feedback was the budget. Accountability here is reputational and structural rather than financial. The scope, timelines, named contributors and public outputs are fixed, and if this isn’t delivered cleanly it’s very visible. I’m comfortable anchoring responsibility on that basis.
On framing: this is intentionally a cultural initiative, not a simple A→B execution task. The goal isn’t just to “get content produced” but to create a coherent, critic led season that contextualises crypto native art in a way that survives beyond the immediate moment. That’s why this format (named critics, long form essays, Verse distribution) feels like the right approach rather than something more transactional.
On currency: it’s a bit more mixed than it might appear. One of the critics has explicitly requested to be paid in ETH and Verse’s payments are also ETH denominated. For simplicity of execution, the proposal is therefore structured in ETH.
That said, I’m conscious of volatility risk. I’m comfortable bearing that risk myself rather than pushing it onto the DAO, and I don’t intend to come back asking for adjustments if market conditions move. If and when the proposal passes, I can manage conversions internally as needed to ensure delivery within the approved budget.
On the multisig/payment mechanics: yes, this is intentional. I’m avoiding the use of a single EOA in favour of a simple 2 of 3 multisig as a security and transparency measure.
Funds aren’t being pooled for discretion or long term custody. The multisig is there to:
👉🏾 reduce key risk
👉🏾 provide clear on chain visibility into payments
👉🏾 ensure clean execution across multiple counterparties
Payments to critics and Verse are still made according to the proposal’s defined splits and milestones. The multisig is just the execution surface, not an extra layer of control.
On what comes after season one: I’m very conscious of the pattern where initiatives quietly become dependent on ongoing DAO funding, and that’s explicitly not the intention here.
Season one is scoped to stand on its own as a complete cultural artefact. If it proves valuable, my aim would be to explore ways for any continuation to become self sustaining rather than relying on repeated DAO asks.
That said, I’m deliberately not baking future funding assumptions into this proposal. Any follow on would be a separate conversation, evaluated on its own merits and only if season one demonstrably works.
Appreciate the push here. It helps sharpen the proposal 🙏🏾
>
>
> a few things to consider:
> 1) no compensation for your work outlined in the proposal is a bad deal for all parties because it sets you free from any accountability. Also, you have nothing on your side of the court to play with and balance things out if something goes south.
> 2) From reading the proposal, it's not clear if this is a) something that simply needs to get done to move from A to B or b) a creative initiative. If it's (a), please outline accordingly how this is the best approach to do so. If it's (b), I'm personally missing some romance and color.
> 3) please ask for USDC if that is the currency you're operating in. We've had multiple proposers coming back asking for more because they gambled ETH value.
> 4) why does this have to go to a multisig? (that section still references 12.51ETH). If you're paying the critics on-chain, please consider setting up the transactions in the proposal accordingly. Even if it's the split you're suggesting.
>
> What comes after season one? what are you aiming at?
>