owned this note
owned this note
Published
Linked with GitHub
# SITG Experiment #2 - DAC0: Liquid pledging and Breaking Whisper
*Draft, to be posted later Sep 18 or early morning Sep 19 -- Oskar*
Welcome to Skin In The Game experiment two! While sitg-one is ongoing, this time we're doing something a bit differently, name play around with a liquid pledging model. As before, we assume a trusted setup (see previous post as to why this is an OK assumption for now).
This experiment directly targets Q3 OKRs re Liquid pledging.
## Pre-requisite reading
1. Future of Giving: https://medium.com/giveth/what-is-the-future-of-giving-d50446b0a0e4
2. Overview of liquid pledging: https://wiki.giveth.io/documentation/product-definition/
3. SITG Experiment #1 https://discuss.status.im/t/sitg-experiment-1-status-intense-micro-adoption/401/30
For context, please skim the above links to get a basic understanding of how this will work.
Assuming a base level understanding of liquid pledging, outlined below are the relevant groups, roles as well as how you can participate as an individual entity.
## Groups
### DAC
A DAC (decentralized altruistic community). A DAC is owned by a delegate who delegates donations to Campaigns linked to the DAC. In our case, this is sitg-two / DAC0.
DAC0 is very simple. Its role is to experiment with high impact liquid pledging experiments that are clearly defined. Its goal is also to remove itself - assuming success, it should be replaced by other DACs that are encoded in contracts. Yours truly is the self-nominated delegate of this DAC0. This might be replaced by a multsig, but it's likely this will instead happen in other DACs. Currently, DAC0 intends to self-destruct 19Q2 at the latest.
It will self-organize in #dac-zero in Status.
### Idea
A campaign is literally an idea (https://ideas.status.im/) in our world.
The initial interest of this DAC is to finance https://hackmd.io/B-W4T1SzSgCAbYS2CfoIPg. Why?
a) Clear purpose - simply to test the hypothesis:
> Whisper will start to drop messages at network capacity, and capacity will never be large enough to adopt a sufficient userbase.
b) High impact - if we can't scale Whisper, this is fundamental to our tech stack and means we need to prioritize other solutions.
c) Believability - high rigor and reasonable plan. the parameterized things to track show a good understanding of the problem domain / variables involved, as well as statistical distributions, both things which are requirements in order to talk about scalability rigorous.
The main thing that is missing is a clear plan of action in terms of milestones and participants. The funding decision is pending this missing piece, for example through an Idea proposal.
Other campaigns/ideas might be interesting but probably not as an initial step.
### Milestones
This is specific to the campaign and up to the campaign manager / swarm lead.
## Roles
### 1. Swarm Lead (Campaign manager)
One agent. Assuming we go through with Breaking Whisper campaign above, that'd be Corey. Anyone listed as swarm lead in our Ideas repo.
Responsible for creating milestones to fund work of people.
If Breaking Whisper doesn't go through, another (set of) ideas might become relevant for this.
### 2. Swarm Reviewer (Campaign reviewer)
One agent. This is a person who can reject a milestone's completion, **cancel milestones and cancel milestones if necessary.** This is largely useful for fraud, but also for things like "set goal for milestone not fulfilled".
This role remains to be filled! Please volunteer for this role if this is something you'd be interested in. This person must be OK saying "not good enough" and not just go long with whatever swarm lead says.
### 3. Delegate
One agent. Oskar for DAC0. Probably a multisig later on for future DACs.
### 4. Giver
Multiple agents. Currently Oskar only at $1000 in SNT. **Open invitation for anyone to join to either donate straight to DAC / Idea / Milestone.** For example, if you think Breaking Whisper is a great idea but you don't want to support other experiments done in DAC0, then you'd just donate straight to the campaign and skipping DAC step.
A giver can rescind their donations at any time.
### 5. Milestone Manager
One agent per milestone. TBD by swarm lead.
### 6. Milestone Reviewer
One agent per milestone. TBD by swarm lead.
### 7. Recipient
One entity per milestone. TBD by swarm lead.
## Practically speaking
A lot of the specifics around how value flows will instead be logged on paper, e.g. in this thread or in idea. In terms of end payment logistics, we'll figure it out as we go, and probably need support from finance/people ops for this in terms of the "final mile" (recipients).
The first steps in the process is (see state diagram, fig 6):
- Donate to DAC0
- Idea / campaign proposal
Also note that, for the time being, payments are currently in addition to whatever compensation you are already receiving.
### DAC next
Future editions of DACS are likely to (a) be encoded in smart contracts (b) involve multi delegates and e.g. multisig/oracles to some extent (c) some restriction/recycling of funds to make sure we don't pay double salary (i.e. promise X of salary for potential 120%*X, etc - separate discussion) and (d) principles signature as a registration step. These points are outside the scope of present interest.
## How to participate
There are a few roles open to participation, in rough order of priority:
1. Become a _giver_ to DAC0, campaign or a specific milestone. For the purpose of this experiment, DAC0 would be most useful, but this is ultimately up to you.
2. Become a _swarm lead_ and post idea with specific ask. This might be Corey or it might be you.
3. Pending swarm specifics: become a swarm reviewer, milestone manager, milestone reviewer or recipient ($$$ ^H $).