With the new Roadmap King Komposable we have new goals to pursue. These goals are centered around our 3 products: Grape Verification, Grape Marketplace, and Grape Dashboard. These strategic goals are logically broad and unspecific. For me, it is not clear where we currently are in this journey. So to make our progress measurable and more transparent it is beneficial to establish a more detailed Grape Product Strategy for each product.
What exactly do we want to build?
First, we don’t exactly know where we want to end up, just a rough idea of where that should be. This needs to be fleshed out. Second, it is not clear what the next steps should be to get where we want to be. What are the milestones we are measuring our progress against? What metrics do we pursue?
Who gets to decide on these questions?
Experience has shown us that although we would like that everyone decides together on things, in reality, there’s a small circle of people that do the work. A much larger circle of people participates in votes but the proposals and discussions are done by roughly the same crowd.
Because it is difficult to change a strategy after committing resources to it, I for one think that there should be one set entity that decides on how to make our roadmap a reality. This way we can take our broad roadmap further by turning it into specific products that bring value to our DAO and the Solana ecosystem.
Discussion Goals:
Have a discussion on how the two questions can be answered. Establish different options and possibly follow up with a Discourse / On-Chain vote.
To kickoff the discussion with some ideas:
Who should decide on a Grape Product Strategy? subDAO Leaders, DAO, subDAO, DAO Core, DAO Board, Team, new Role/Council
In my humble opinion the new roadmap is not a rough idea, it’s pretty specific & already being worked on. And it is still on par with the initial idea of Grape. I think that progress should always be measured in decentralization & composability.
Now I don’t mind most people voting but not partaking in the conversations. As long as people have the power to downvote an action, I don’t see no harm. Now the actual reason why the participation circle is smaller on execution rather than voting is, in my opinion, that we delegate everything to subDAOs, boards & councils. Each of those entities should focus on their own tasks & at the same time participate in the DAO. Long answer short: The DAO should decide on Grape Product Strategy. Everyone should participate in the DAO.
We identified that Grape Access, the Grape Dashboard and the NFT market place are three unique products. The dashboard for one, the DAO proposed to be further split into a governance specific dashboard and a general purpose dashboard for holdings and for verification. The benefit of being completely open source across the three different products anyone in the DAO or outside of the DAO can contribute back and further the development of each product.
Who gets to decide on these questions?
The DAO has made multiple proposals and bounties have been created to attract developers outside of Grape to contribute. I think the point you are making here is we need to be able to focus on the immediate short term and long term benefits each product will bring back value to our DAO.
Yes. The point I want to make is along the following questions:
What is the vision of Grape?
What is the detailed next step towards this vision? e.g. complete Bounty XY or implement feature XY in product Z
Who should/is orchestrating this process from here to Vision of Grape on a day-to-day basis?
