I tried to wrap my head around what is actually happening within Grape during the last couple of months and where we see our priorities. I appreciate the constant flow of ideas and suggestions on how we organize ourselves and what a solid structure for working at Grape could look like. Especially Dean, with his excellent article, has made a significant contribution by giving perspective and pointing out crucial topics for any DAO regarding DAO(i)ness.
The reveal of the Team’s transition was a surprise, sure, but in light of the discussed topics in the article, it makes sense to me.
The thing I can’t quite follow is the timing or, rather, the need for an immediate change. I’m aware that many of us tend to favor action more than inaction, which is good, but I’m not talking about inaction; I’m talking about taking steps deliberately and planning ahead. The recent proposal (and article) made by Taki and Dim is the reason I’m pointing this out.
Everyone involved in the community knows that we’re facing many different challenges and are constantly trying to find the best solutions with the resources and tools available. Yet, at the same time, it feels that many of those challenges and possible solutions interfere with each other and, in turn, can have adverse effects.
I try to keep it brief. Here is one example of what I mean:
Rewards and Compensations
I understand that transitioning to a different compensation model is something that we do need. For me, though, this new system must be sustainable, especially if $USDC comes into play. If it is not, giving out any $USDC is a risk we shouldn’t take lightly.
Revenue streams
We gave away one of your possibly best chances for a constant revenue stream: Grape Access. By creating the $GAN token and ultimately the GAN DAO, everything that might’ve ended up in the Grape Treasury now is controlled by the GAN DAO (Grape DAO has only 1 $GAN = 1 vote). They are also the gatekeepers for any further proposals - let’s say a small monthly $USDC fee for using Grape Access and receiving new features.
Another example is Dean’s List. Initially, we talked about this being a Grape Service; Grape Members giving feedback to other communities for a fee. This is also a separate DAO now and with it one less revenue stream for Grape.
I get that decentralization and autonomy are (and should be) important to us. At the same time, I wonder whether this is the smartest move if we simultaneously push all those other things. I don’t say that it is wrong or that people aren’t allowed to do it; they are certainly free to do anything they want. I’m just trying to see the bigger picture. I’m under the impression that we’re losing cohesion and unity and that this, right now, hurts us more than what we gain by our increased decentralization and autonomy. Maybe it needs to hurt before it gets better, I don’t know.
But what happens when other people who generate value decide to do the same? The developers, the moderators, or anyone essential for other Grape Services. A subDAO, for me, is different from a fully-fledged, independent DAO or a ‘branched community’. A subDAO is still part of Grape and, therefore, governed by the Grape DAO, whereas those other DAOs are not. Maybe I’m not seeing it, but where should the Grape DAO get the needed revenue from for paying for services in $USDC? Do we rely on the realization that without Grape, those other DAOs may not have existed in the first place? Is the Grape DAO dependent on a kick-back from those DAOs?
I’m intentionally provocative here because it is one thing to push for [D]ecdentalization and [A]utonomy, but we shouldn’t forget that a DAO is nothing without the [O]rganizational part. The Organization is the core aspect and, with it, the shared purpose.
If our purpose is being a charity and supporting the Solana ecosystem, sure, why not, but then we can’t make payments in $USDC unless we have sponsors or start looking for donations. I was under the impression, though, that we’re an organization with a business case trying to find business models (see riderinred’s [Discussion] Grape Product Strategy).
Either way, sustainability is key, and without it (or a plan to becoming it), I can’t vote in favor of any proposal that suggests potentially draining the Treasury of $USDC.
One could argue that we’re already paying some rewards in $USDC. But those are bounties and, as such, on a per case basis, not recurring, and they can be put on hold at any time.
I have many more questions that I’m gradually trying to find answers to, but pointing this out was important to me. With such a drastic decision, I had hoped that some of those issues would’ve also been addressed to get things sorted out before they become a problem later. Since this gets even more of a slippery slope without having a business plan and keeping track of budgets.
I know that this post doesn’t give an answer and potentially raises more questions. Believe me when I say that this bothers me a lot *puts on thinking cap. But maybe there are answers, and someone thought of something; if so, I’d love to hear and understand them because I, too, believe in what we’re creating here together, and I hope to see us continue to grow.
Cheers Pawz
