| Name | 1 Executive (3 day to approve) | 3 Senior Team (5 days) | 1-Lead-3-Engineer Guild (1 week) | 5-of-9 DAO Governors (2 weeks) | 10% Community Votes (4 weeks) | To move fast while reaching consensus, who should approve for a $1M proposal? | *Name |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | It depends on the thing to approve. For major company level key initiatives, definitely need ceo and senior team to review and approve, otherwise, it’s too much risk for the company. For less-critical things, it can go to corresponding groups to approve. For example, staking related change needs to go through validator DAO and community goverance. | 🛡Rongjian | |
10 | 50 | 20 | 0 | 20 | we need to clarify here what kind of decision approval here. | 🏃Leo | |
-50 | 50 | 50 | 30 | 20 | It never is an one person decision in any case. We almost always have at least 5+ strong yes on any major decisions and even some minor ones just so we can hear everyone’s perspectives.
Even more important than how many people make the decisions, I think most of the core team should hear about the decisions. For example, I am okay with any 3 core team on our team making a $1M because I trust them, but before that I would like a heads up and to provide some input or guidance. And I’m always okay not being one of the voters if it’s about something that I am not a domain expert in such as tech or culture.
So I think my vote is really for “3 senior team make the final decision + 10 core team give input and know about it beforehand” | 🎽Li | |
0 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | Apart from 1 executive deciding on 1M proposal, i am fine with other choices, because based on the context, i could see each of those 4 choices succeeding in making a decision on the proposal. | 🏏Ganesha | |
0 | 60 | 30 | 0 | 10 | 🛹Peter | ||
0 | 60 | 30 | 0 | 10 | We always need more than one individual making the decision. And - for big ticket items - we should allow for some portion of it to reflect community sentiment. | 🌲Sam | |
0 | 50 | 35 | 5 | 10 | I don’t like the idea of 1 Exec making decisions. I would trust the instincts of 3 senior team members and guilds since through experience and consensus we are bound to make wiser decisions. | ☁️Giv | |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | I won’t vote here as well as this doesn’t make sense to have a such amount of money being approved without a proper structure for approval. The larger the amount, the higher ranking we need the approval, this is so the organization is aware on where the money is being spent and to avoid back fire community tweet afterward.
I like Li’s answer to have dev/team senior a say on it with senio being aware only, a community involvement DAO/Community through vote is a good idea to understand if our investment is well spent | ⚔Soph | |
0 | 50 | 50 | -10 | -20 | There is very strong evidence based on extensive research that says that crowds are not wise when it comes to take complex decision. Decision takers must be selected on merits and expertise. | 🚗Boris | |
🐉Jack | |||||||
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | This poll needs context, without it I cannot effectively vote. Who should approve a $1M proposal fixing RPC? Who should approve a $1M proposal for a partnership? An investment? An event? The danger in creating guidelines off of a poll like this is that you end up with guidelines that sometimes don’t make any sense, especially when the person required to make the call on getting approval might not be qualified to make that decision. A better idea is to create budget thresholds and give individual teams the authority to spend as long as it is under the spending goal. When Sam asked for $5M for events, it forced the team to consider how to spend it. That was working great until we ditched that and went right back to the approval process, which forced the entire train of events to slow to a grinding halt. I would null this poll and redo with context. | 🎥Adrian | |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Unfortunately I’m not sure I understand the poll and think it wouldn’t be beneficial to vote and skew the averages. | 🔭Daniel | |
10 | 40 | 40 | 0 | 10 | Although I do agree that we should have at least 3 senior team agreement for approvals, this can provoke major issues especially with timing for events. For example, for NFT.NYC which is coming up in a month, we still have not locked in a venue for anything, which prevents the events team and creative team from further planning. It is imperative to lock things like venues down early in event planning process because venues can make or break an event. Furthermore, it is possible that out of the 3 senior team members, some may not even be involved with certain events, therefore I think it is more efficient to have an exec or department head be able to get approval for smaller event tasks like locking down venues without the need of 3 team members. For example, in order to get approval for event venues, it can be the events lead - li - 1 other core, or it can be a voting process of entire events team, followed by event lead presenting the votes and justifications to li. In summary, my main point is yes, 3 senior team members should agree for approvals, however there are certain timely instances such as securing a venue where this isn’t efficient. | 🎬Danny | |
20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | Really depends on the project. There’s no one-size-fit-all | ⛵Hakwan | |
0 | 60 | 20 | 10 | 10 | I do want the engage our community more, the question becomes how to do it most effectively. If we can reach consensus on that, I would increase my vote there...but for now, there’s no solid plan in place. For the majority of funding decisions, I think the experts of that topic (defi, gaming, DAOs, events, etc) should be most involved with the decision. | 🎤Matt | |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Abstaining. Not enough context. | 💃🏻Essa | |
0 | 65 | 30 | 10 | 5 | Primarily 3 execs, who should take ownership and hopefully get feedback from the other categories | 🦒Brian | |
20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | Sometimes slow is fast. rushing is stressful and we end up making mistakes. want to stop making mistakes? stop rushing! | 🐯Tom | |
-20 | 60 | 20 | 20 | 20 | No decision should be taken by 1 person. Not decentralised at all | ⚽Abhishek | |
-20 | 30 | 30 | 0 | 60 | We need to regain the trust of our community. | 🛰️Max | |
0 | 45 | 45 | 5 | 5 | It really depends, but i think should be somehow like this | ⛓️Konstantin | |
20 | 20 | 20 | 10 | 30 | 🪙Gheis | ||
💊Sahil | |||||||
-50 | 50 | 50 | -25 | -25 | Skin the game; DRI | ⏳Zi | |
0 | 70 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 💻Aaron | ||
⚛Jackie | |||||||
-100 | 100 | 50 | 10 | 25 | To quote Giv “I don’t like the idea of 1 Exec making decisions. I would trust the instincts of 3 senior team members and guilds since through experience and consensus we are bound to make wiser decisions.” No more needed. | 📖Devin | |
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Would like more information & context regarding this topic to provide a well-informed response. | 🐇Rachel | |
0 | 35 | 25 | 90 | 50 | I’m using the percentages to represent my agreement on the voting strategy, because I'm confused as to how we would allocate resources.
I said 50% for 10% community vote in 4 weeks because I’m not sure if 10% is enough? | 🐐Mikey | |
0 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 0 | I think the people in the fire everyday should approve something that large. | 🚜Demetre | |
I don’t have enough information for a well-informed opinion | 💿Kelly | ||||||
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | It is hard to answer this question without more context. However, I personally will follow the following practice.
1. People of knowledge and expertise should be doing the approval. However, balance it with being timely on execution/ implementation (depending on the approval required).
2. What is equally important is not just the approvals, but the communication as to WHY it is approved, measure of success and the guidelines - especially on big ticket items. Without this, people have little context to the WHY, and it is easy to get frustrated after the fact.
3. Community sentiment is important - and should be taken as real feedback to reflect, and pivot, as necessary, but not as a direct follow through. We have to be careful of herd mentality and especially in today social media age - this can easily get out of control.
Lastly - do not be afraid to take bets or swim against the current. Great companies become great because they take the right winning bets at the right moment. If the Wright Brothers were to follow consensus, they wouldn’t have flown.
That being said - I do think that we need to drive accountability by clearly explaining WHY we are taking a certain position and the assumptions. This will allow us to reflect and pivot, when needed. | 🌟Novell | |
🦋Amy | |||||||
As a general rule, I’d look to marry approval with accountability. My recommendations:
1. There should always be at least 2 approvers (exec or otherwise) to ensure decisions are well thought through
2. There should be at least one of the approvers held accountable for the outcome; are KPIs met?
For decisions that are being driven by a broader consensus, there should be a timeline and escalation process to arrive at decisions that are dragging on for too long. I’m not sure how to translate this to numerical weighting | 🤖Eric | ||||||
20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 20 | decision making process for me it is not and will never be about a 1 person decision; also, i will always support the path, when the decision is made based on the knowledge and expertise for a specific area of responsibility - if i’m not an experienced dev it will be hard to me to make a strong decision on protocol improvements, but i can simply participate in decision making if it comes about daoing our community if i’m a dao-ops team member | ♒Nick | |
10 | 20 | 20 | 20 | 30 | For better optics we should give a bit more emphasis to community and less for executives and core team members. We lost community trust and need a way to regain this. | 🧑🍳 Victa | |
🐙Sergey | |||||||
📱Tejassvi | |||||||
5 | 30 | 30 | 30 | 5 | It really depends on the kind of approval, the level of risk and if the case the level of technical work required. As the org matures more and more decisions can be forwarded to the community but for starts I think its important to let the internal team to take most of them. | 🏔Diego | |
10 | 30 | 30 | 20 | 10 | I think 5days~1week is a good time to make a decision and can heard more voice. | 🏓Xiaopeng | |
🍩Bruce | |||||||
🥤Jeremy | |||||||
🚛Mohamed | |||||||
🛫Tahir | |||||||
-10 | 50 | 50 | 0 | 10 | |||
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | I prefer to abstain here as I am not familiar with the context (ie. approval for what?) nor current practice | ||
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Abstaining, my experience in approvals is limited, unclear on what has worked or hasn’t in the past. But I support having 2-3 seniors oversee whatever funding is happening. |