[Signal Request] One-time Payment to COM-001 to Cover Missing DssVest Funds

COM-001 Governance Request

Converted to Signal Request

Situation

Due to a mistake by me, @Davidutro, the original DSSVest stream(Id:1) for our team was configured incorrectly. It was meant to stream our original monthly figure, from MIP40SP8, of $40,500 per month for four months. In practice it was set to stream 122,700 Dai over 4 months, 30,675 Dai per month.

We considered whether we need these missing funds when putting together our recent MIP40-SP40 Budget Modification and decided that while we were running close to the wire, between the 50k contingency and the money saved on our first two months of operations we should be fine without the unclaimable 39,300.

Money saved during first two months

  • No healthcare setup until October when we signed our contracts.
  • No third hire yet, our Engagement Lead was onboarded in October.
  • AccountAble waived Aug and Sep fees.
  • We over-budgeted for software and couldn’t actually pay for it until October when we got the GovComms bank card.

Well, it looks like we need the budgeted funds after all. In SP8 we mention that the contingency fund of 50k would be used for additional expenses including legal as it arises. Our team is in the process of hiring legal services to guide us around the Stakeholder Database project and unfortunately, we can’t afford them until either we wait on SP40 and build up some funds or take alternative action to expedite this and avoid delay.

Request

And so, we are asking Maker Governance for a one-time payment to our Core Unit’s Operational Multisig 0x1eE3ECa7aEF17D1e74eD7C447CcBA61aC76aDbA9 for the missed funds of 27058.33 Dai.

Breakdown:
40,500 x 4 = 162,000
162,000 - 122,700 = 39,300
Minus December, as we have a supplemental stream in SP40 to fix that month’s distribution to align with the new forecast.
39,300 - 12,241.67 = 27058.33

These funds were already ratified/earmarked for our team via SP8, so in theory there shouldn’t be a problem with this request as I’ve been advised. Please feel free to share any questions or comments.

@GovAlpha-Core-Unit @Recognized-Delegates @Protocol-Engineering

Do you support this one-off governance request?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Abstain

0 voters


Note on our team’s Accounting + Actuals Reporting

We’ve recently completed a full independent accounting sweep in parallel to the accounting that AccountAble does for us to help in reporting our actuals and tracking everything.

We also have a contributor under NDA to help us with automating and connecting our various excel sheets to make this easier for our team in the future.

We’re also meeting with SES this week to learn more about the resources they offer to help clean and streamline our operations with regard to accounting, budgeting, and forecasting.

Our Public Budget Sheet contains the most up-to-date actuals for our team along with notes in column J.

And lastly, I just want to say sorry for the error. I hate to put an additional burden on people, and this makes me feel pretty bad. Again, feel free to ask me anything. I am happy to give the best answers I can.

5 Likes

Thread Change:

  • Converted Governance Request into Signal Thread as advised by Long & Prose.
  • Adjusted the number to reflect the December stream outlined in our latest budget modification MIP SP40 to avoid double counting.

Details on that second point:

  1. COM-001 Passes, gets one-time distribution for August 40,500 Dai
  2. Following month DSSVest streams are set up.
    COM-001 gets a 8/31 - 12/31 stream for 122,700 Dai. (30,675 per month)
  3. COM-001 proposed SP40, upping our monthly distribution from December forward to 42,916.67 with a stream of 257,500.02 DAI from 2022-01-01 and ending 2022-06-30
    and a Supplemental Stream for December to be a 42,916.67 distribution (42,916.67 - 30,675 = 12,241.67 DAI streamed starting 2021-12-01 and ending 2021-12-31.

Therefore December is excluded from this ask since we get the proper distribution with the passing of SP40.

1 Like

We have asked @Davidutro to make a signal request for these funds. A full timeline of events and rationale can be found below but the TL;DR is that GovAlpha feels the initial budget request was not clear enough to warrant including the 27058.33 DAI distribution in an upcoming executive without a prior vote.

Timeline of Budget Discrepancy

  • The Governance Communications Core Unit (COM-001) was approved in the July Governance Cycle with their budget - MIP40c3-SP8.
  • The August 6th Executive includes a payment of 40,500 DAI to the operating wallet for COM-001. This amount is confirmed by GovAlpha and the Spell writers, as it appears in the Budget Breakdown of MIP40c3-SP8.
  • On August 31st, @prose11 messages @Davidutro on Rocket Chat about a potential budget discrepancy uncovered when attempting to confirm stream amounts for DssVest.
  • @Davidutro and @prose11 chat about what the amount should be eventually settling on a streamed total of 122,700 DAI. This is achieved by subtracting the already distributed 40,500 DAI from the stated total allocation of 163,200 DAI in 2021 from the Paragraph Summary of MIP40c3-SP8.
    Note at this point the reason for the discrepancy is not uncovered, with @Davidutro assuming the 40,500 DAI is an approximate annual extrapolation for the core unit.
  • On September 23rd, @Davidutro uncovers the source of the budget discrepancy - that the initial budget proposal accounted for only one month of Q3 expenses, but two months needed to be accounted for (August and September, rather than just August).
  • @Davidutro creates this pull request to bring the MIP in alignment and contacts @prose11.
  • After chatting @Davidutro and GovAlpha decide it would not be appropriate to update the MIP, given that the previous figure was used for setting up DssVest and that the MIP itself was not explicit enough elsewhere when describing the distribution.
  • GovAlpha advises @Davidutro to either create a separate signal for the difference or include it in the forthcoming new budget proposal.
  • @Davidutro looks at this burn rate and contingency funds and decides that the excess funds are not needed.
  • Yesterday (November 16th) @Davidutro brings up the situation at the Mandated Actors meeting, noting that a legal expense will deplete his funding if action is not taken.
  • The above post is then made.

Governance Decision

Ultimately GovAlpha is not comfortable including the 27058.33 DAI in an executive without an onchain vote to get it there. We feel a Signal Process is appropriate to encourage discourse on the situation and ensure that MKR Voters can be confident in what they are approving.

Given the confusion of the proposal’s author, we think it is unlikely that MKR Voters fully understood the budget they approved in the July Governance cycle. Having a signal process play out will bring greater transparency to this situation and ensure that everyone is aligned on the actual funding being distributed to COM-001.

4 Likes