Advisory/BizOps Committee

Weinstein

Since this has been discussed on the governance-proposal discord channel I thought it might be useful to bring it to the forum for larger/more specific input from the community.
Essentially, as Scoopy noted and we have seen, the project continues to grow and have opportunities for many "biz" strategies. These range from listing opportunities to integration partners. With the core team busy building what we all know and love, the project, the idea of having some trusted level of elected advisory makes some sense IMO. This is a rough outline of what I would suggest.

Advisory Committee nominated and elected upon by community with responsibilities to investigate, research and recommend when business opportunities arise as the core team/community requests their input.
The committee should be 3-7 people (off number of elected to break ties) with one (1) year annual terms and re-election.
Advisory members should expect to spend and commit to at least 8 hours a month of work, this could be writing/reviewing proposals, meeting with team, project interviews or other responsibilities.
Nominations should come from community but I would suggest that the core team hold some increased weight to either have one or more (automatic) members as well so the advisory group has a real ear to the ground on the deals/opportunities.
Any NDA or document that needs to be in place to protect IP and biz/project should be in place to give both team and community comfort that the advisory has alignment with the best interests.
Finally, the DAO should have the ability to replace this board by majority vote if it becomes unnecessary or there is a better "V2" that the community elects to pursue. This board is not the "voice" the community but rather one of them, elected to advise and guide both the team and community as best it can.
Would recommend a mix of experience but background in startups, blockchain, finance and/or tradfi VC would probably be helpful although there are many viewpoints and experiences which can be a net positive.

Those are just my two gwei, let's discuss! I love the concept and hope we can get this done with the core team's blessing and community governance model that has served us well to day.

LFG, Weinstein out.

dr00shie

Killer idea Scoopy and great initial talking points Weinstein! I am in favor of this concept as it broadens the scope of honest actors within the system. The more individuals that can see things through different lenses of life experience the more healthy the protocol will become and the more the community can trust the direction.

Looking forward to more developments on this. Also, putting a hand in the air to join said committee.

ov3rkoalafied

I would do less than one year, especially at the start. Stuff moves very fast in Crypto/DEFI and if someone isn't doing well in the position we want to act faster than 1 year. Also, to make sure I understand - is the idea that this committee would essentially sit in on meetings / things that require NDAs, correct? But they would not be contributing to the discussion/negotation or anything. Basically just there to be a group of people to understand, ask and answer dev questions, but not interface directly with clients. That would be best IMO, we still want the core team being the only ones actually handling deals, unless they specifically ask the committee to do something (ie, the committee should generally not be taking initiative)

Weinstein

ov3rkoalafied Yes I agree with this, they are advising not working or presenting things to the actual partners/clients. In terms of the term we could easily do 6 month terms to start.

cmurr777

ov3rkoalafied I agree with this and believe that this type of proposal should include a removal mechanism.

Pirateed

Thanks for putting together the starting point Weinstein. Adding my thoughts to continue the conversation.

I think it's important that this adds value to Alchemix and isn't duplicative. In my view, the committee should be a representation of the investor base and able to make certain delegated decisions for that group. I dont think we gain anything by forming a board that replicates the Strategic Partners and/or Trusting Investors. There will of course be some overlap but it shouldn't be a carbon copy.

That being said, I agree with the points by Weinstein but think this needs to be much more specific in final version. The board should have delegated authority over the Treasury under a certain amount to make decisions with reporting responsibilities to the broader DAO. I dont have a view of the specific delegated number but in general, I view the token grant to a Tier-1 exchange as a board decision versus the ALCX token loan for market making as a decision for the broader investor base with a recommendation from the board. Either way, there needs to be a high amount of transparency between the core team, board and broader DAO on decisions made and why. I think the ALCX team has done a good job setting the example that should be followed by all involved.

I also think there needs to be some type of materiality of investment (to be defined) from each board member. That can be verified by Scoopy and team, but there needs to be a clear alignment from a monetary perspective and I dont feel anyone can represent the investor base without being one.

Last comment from my end - This should be a cut and dry setup with clear and defined responsibilities, incentives and timelines. The goal here should be to build the expertise/resource base of ALCX, make decisions quicker, provide another voice to the community and free up the core teams time.

Thanks - PIrateed

yuntamoto

I think this is a really important topic that could have major implications for the direction of Alchemix and lots of DeFi/DAOs in general. Creating a decision making body within a decentralized organization should not be taken lightly. The potential for concentrated decision making influence on a project, despite the best of intentions in the early days, could risk undermining the tenets of a DAO.
All that being said, it's also obvious that there would be benefits having a group of individuals which can represent the interests of the community and help to guide the project forward, while reducing workload on the devs.
The issue I see, is what system would be created to delegate said individuals, and what would be the extent of their decision making. Let us also remember that creating multiple groups (devs, VC, community oversight) also adds complexity to the org management such as decision making and communication.
Are there some examples from other DAOs that have worked well/poorly that we could consider for guiding if/how we go about forming this type of committee?