[Signal Request] Legal Communications Framework Bounty

Withdrawn by author - @LongForWisdom

4 Likes

Hey @seth thanks for bringing this Signal forward! One question I have is what outcome you’d like to have from this Signal. These options don’t lend themselves too well to an onchain poll.

  • “Yes, we should offer the bounty but 40,000 Dai isn’t enough”
  • “Yes, we should offer the bounty but 40,000 Dai is too much”

Depending on your timeline and intention I would recommend either running an informal poll with those options to gauge sentiment, or selecting concrete amounts of DAI for people to signal on so the poll can move on chain if there is majority support around one or multiple options.

1 Like

Stoked to see this bad boy on the forum. Amy’s SPF lives on!

When I gave contributing edits my thinking on the workflow here was: SPF MIP, revisions in RFC, put that to a vote on-chain. Then as a result the DAO finds lawyers for a MIP set.

Maybe I missed something though @seth ?

If either of those options gets a majority, we can consider this poll a “No” and I’ll post a new Signal Request.

SPFs under 50,000 Dai go to a Signal Request to reduce overhead on governance.

1 Like

Also, @ultraschuppi asked and I was wondering about this while writing the proposal: the SPF MIP specifies that two comptrollers are needed but given that the point of an SPF is to reduce administrative overhead and the bounty is satisfied by the passage of a new MIP, could I edit this proposal to say the DAO will transfer the money when the MIP is passed so we can do without comptrollers and a new multisig?

@LongForWisdom @prose11

If I remember correctly, the idea behind this setup is that anyone trying for the bounty can have more confidence that they’ll receive the bounty if they do a good job. The comptrollers act as the escrow for the funds, which should be drawn from governance when the bounty is placed, rather than when someone delivers.

This also moves the administrative overhead to when the bounty is placed, rather than both when it is completed and when it’s placed, which means that it demands less attention from governance (at the cost of moving some admin work to the comptrollers).

Based on that, and the fact that the MIP as written doesn’t really make the comptroller s+ multisig optional, I think you should stick with the process as laid out in MIP55.


Edit: Hm, in retrospect it wasn’t really designed for bounties at all, but I think both the points I made are still valid. The idea is to give the people working on the SPF confidence that they will get the funds, and to reduce governance overhead.

1 Like

This will be a very challenging task as it will require the blending of large, international corporate organization “best practice” with the Maker ethos of decentralization. Also, any proposal will need to account for the very disparate functions within Maker - structured finance with RWF CU is very different than potential ventures or contracts with Growth, which are different than corporate governance … and then there is regulatory too. No one lawyer has the requisite experience in each of the above. And even large, international corporate organizations require the support of external counsel who have the more specialist expertise.

I would add that any proposal needs to: (1) identify key focus areas, (2) provide a budget for implementation and maintenance, and (3) describe how to retain the right talent (directly or indirectly) for each key subject area.

4 Likes