You’re right this hasn’t been proposed to the treasury I was a little hasty with this criticism.
The intent of the LID, as I understand it, is to award bonuses through a retroactive funding program based on the past work and contributions to the livepeer network.
There are no specific commitments or milestone achievements required. The awarded amount can be spent, staked, or distributed at the awardee’s discretion.
I see nothing wrong with that, these projects have delivered and awarding them for their contributions is a nice gesture and this recognition is encourageing for future builders.
This goal should be conveyed a bit more clearly but the intention was clear from the beginning, you actually names the projects they should vote for but voters were given their own discretion.
Instead of telling people who to vote for, you should lay out a criteria for evaluating projects, such as impact, innovation, network contribution, longevity and overall past performance. However I don’t think that’s necessary anymore as we now have the list. This could have been a simple scale of 1-5 qientionaire each dao member ticks off.
The first things you should decide on is a budget for this. This could be in USD or LPT. Once the budget is set, it’s locked in and will have to be paid out. Get this agreed with treasury as you can’t organise events of programs and not have the finances secured. Tell them of your intentions, what the goal is and what you’re looking to achieve and the budget for this. Having a list the team members and their background would be useful. Besides the funding, a expense budget for you and your team can also be proposed and agreed here. Your time and effort is valuable and this should be a fixed fee rather than the current commission based approach which can sway judgement through financial incentives.
Now decide if this is a competition so 1st,2nd, 3rd etc or if its a percentage based on voting allocation or something. You may want to set up a maximum limit for individual projects or add additional limits and criterias here.
Next it is the eligibility (which you’ve already done now). Finally the allocation by percentage for each project. These should really be done by a panel of judges as I’ve seen this abused across multiple DAOs. I’ve been offered bribes and been blackmailed. You’re exposing your DAO members to these vulnerabilities and ideas.
The results that we got, weren’t what you expected. They weren’t what I expected but there lies the problem. The overall process behind it is flawed, heavily susceptible to influence, corruption and conflicts of interest.
The point of the LID DAO is to not bother the O with all management, the admin work and have individual projects approaching the treasury. I think it’s unfair to be having this back and forth process with the treasury and expecting O members to offer uptheir time to get your proposal and program done.
The treasury can give you the funding you need for the LID program but they shouldn’t get sucked into the process and handling of the LID. You need a proposal and a team that inspires confidence that you can handle & manage this on their behalf and the outcome will be beneficial for everyone.
As for the lack of experience you’ve got the Livepeer grant team I’m unsure why we aren’t approaching them for advice. I suspect it’s because you don’t want to involve them with the LID program as you want it to be own thing but some advice from them can help get this shaped out.
