DAO Call - August 4, 2021
Summary Notes, Weekly DAO Call, August 4, 2021
Team in Attendance: Rochelle
Members in Attendance: @ace, Alan, Bree, C3MEATOS, DJSTRIKANOVA, howard k, Rochelle, splottingham, Vicente Calduch
Roles: Call Moderator: DJSTRIKANOVA Recorder: Bree Proposal Tracker: splottingham
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Chris and Jesse are formally invited to attend next weeks call.
PROPOSALS:
NEW REVISED POLL - Seeking equitable Weekly DAO Call Times https://dao.effect.network/proposals/68 Status: Active (see proposal 66) Vote: Yes
Currently, as of today, there are 21 yes votes and 18 poll responses.
Incentivized program for liquidity on Pancake Swap https://dao.effect.network/proposals/67 Status: Closed, Approved
DAO Governance Rewards 30% Unused vs Fixed https://dao.effect.network/proposals/64 Status: Closed, Rejected
Of note, there are people wondering, some complaints some just curious, about why their rewards were so significantly reduced this cycle. This proposal was aiming to eliminate the problem of reduced rewards when there were higher than normal cycle funds awarded.
Open Source Grant for work previously completed by DJSTRIKANOVA, set through multiple proposals P52-P63. It is important to read P52 carefully to understand the concept of what is being asked through the 12 proposals. https://dao.effect.network/proposals/52 Status: Closed, 52-55 approved, 56-63 rejected
Weekly DAO Call – Seeking equitable Weekly DAO Call Times https://dao.effect.network/proposals/66 Status: Processing Vote: Yes
There seems to be a problem with the Pollly Poll in that people may be able to change someone else’s vote.
46 yes votes vs. 19 identified poll participants vs. 23 poll results
As there is only about half of the yes votes represented in the poll, I’m adding another poll to replace this one through a proposal.
The Pollly Poll has been completed. Results:
6am – 3 votes
8am – 3 votes
3pm – 3 votes
5pm – 12 votes
8pm – 2 votes
DAO Call Recorder June ‘invoice’ request https://dao.effect.network/proposals/65 Status: Closed, approved
QUESTIONS/DISCUSSIONS FOR/WITH TEAM: (These will be tabled to next week)
SDK:
A set of 3 Medium posts are planned, the first to be released tomorrow, this will provide updates for both the SDK and progress on the Effect Force update.
The first of these posts is found here: https://medium.com/effect-ai/tech-blog-effect-account-system-a3bd8dfe93d4
How does the bridge exchange EFX and BNB tokens?
Does it burn one and then mint one or is it a pure exchange system where there needs to be an amount available to give out one over the other? It isn’t like a liquidity pool.
Will Token Pocket be one of the BSC options for signing into Effect Force?
How will the snapshot for the upcoming payment of Network Fees be taken?
With each cycle? Taking in account the different joining dates/participation of members.
On a specific date, all inclusive?
There remains concern about the swaps from NEO, especially regarding the team’s tokens.
The Team are currently actively getting their tokens swapped over from NEO into various EOS accounts.
Why was this not done previously, so that the only tokens not on EOS were late swappers? In other words, why are the team late swappers?
Or is the team swaps that are still continuing the active team tokens, or are they past team tokens?
Laurens is still getting data from the swaps. This is still on his radar, but he is waiting for the swap codes to be nearing exhaustion before tabulating.
Should we invite Laurens to attend a call to address remaining or new swap questions?
Some questions are:
When will the swaps stop?
Can the team show they have not sold any tokens?
NEO 3.0 is due to launch soon, how will this impact unswapped tokens?
Post Script: NEO 3.0 mainnet launched August 2nd https://twitter.com/Neo_Blockchain/status/1422165891601502209?s=20
The current market maker(s) do not seem to be efficient. Is there progress toward a more efficient market maker that will work to keep the price of EFX in line with increases as they occur?
Who is the person who is best to ask this question to?
Marketing:
Regarding Fabrizia:
There are suggestions that Fabrizia has left working for Effect based upon her Linked In status stating her work with Effect.AI ended in June.
Can this be confirmed or a reason given for this status update?
Has there been progress on hiring another admin for TG?
LIQUIDITY INCENTIVIZATION/VOLUME:
Any updates on the progress of the MasterChef contract?
Discord post by Jesse on July 31.
In the coming cycle, should we have a big proposal to have the MasterChef contract funded in full for 3 month’s worth of rewards?
This would be a big ask at once.
People have pledged to fund this on the proposal, so hopefully the votes will reflect this.
We have already agreed to fund one cycle, so we would be looking at needing to fund 3 more cycles.
The price of EFX was about 2 cents at the time of calculation for about 80k EFX.
This might not be so clearly approved if the whole amount was asked for at the same time.
This was established as a cycle by cycle in the proposal. There should be an expectation to keep funding this each cycle over the next 2 months (4 cycles).
Jesse would like to start the MasterChef August 12.
It might be best to simply hold off the start of the MC contract until after all the funds are secured and in place.
If we can get the proposal to go through worded in such a way that the full amount is pre approved, but to be released reasonably through each cycle’s budget, perhaps the Foundation could be asked to provide a flash loan based upon that pre approval so that the MC contract could be initiated promptly with it’s full amount.
Not sure how pre approval would work with a time delay release of the funds from the treasury.
This is a possible solution to have the funds for the contract accelerated.
The Foundation will match the amount given to the contract by the DAO, for a 1:1 ratio.
The idea is by having these rewards this will attract people to contribute to liquidity
Getting a syrup pool on Pancake Swap is not simple.
Creating our on contract to increase liquidity is one way to help increase use of the token, to increase volume/activity, to increase liquidity all of which will contribute to becoming more favourable to being noticed by PS for their syrup pools.
The more wallets holding pEFX the better.
Post Script from Jesse August 5th:
The PancakeSwap fees collected by Effect from the EFX liquidity pool have been sent to the DAO fee pool. This is 43,044 EFX that has been earned since the start of the pool until the end of cycle 15 (last Friday). You can check out the report here: https://bit.ly/3lvxTKn
These fees will be calculated and sent to the DAO every cycle from now on; we will get a bi-weekly report on this.
Vigor:
Community member Lennie is really involved in Vigor and will look into what needs to happen with EFX for it to be listed with Vigor.
I have not yet heard back from Lennie.
Should liquidity be a concern or priority of the DAO?
Yes.
The more significant amount of liquidity the greater stability for the token.
Stability is important for workers and their ability to exchange EFX for fiat.
Stability is important for requesters in that they can rely on the price of EFX to be reflected in the tokens they have purchased and in the amount of tokens they pay out to workers.
Requesters would not be happy having to adjust the payment amount frequently due to the price of the EFX price fluctuation, as currently happens.
The bigger the pool the harder it is to change the price.
Therefore, contributing to liquidity is a concern for the welfare of TEN, and therefore a concern for the DAO.
HACK-A-THON:
The junior hackation will be November/December marketed to college/university students.
This will be a 17 day programming period including three weekends. Not over any holiday.
This should be enough time to work on a project.
A question for Chris would be where he was at on the plan. The idea was that there will be a big branching out to universities.
Work out all the kinks of learning how to run a hackathon properly so we are ready for the bigger one.
Students graduate and bring their school experiences and resume builders to their future employers so we need to be really.
The senior hackathon will have a bigger prize pool to encourage professionals to participate.
The goal is to ultimately make TEN a go to standard, where at some point Effect Network is what is recommended to be used within companies when online workers are required.
This of course takes time. University student who participated in the hackathon, get hired, the company wants to use online workers, the young worker recommends Effect Network.
Marketing is not needing to be too big right now, but once the SDK is ready, and in preparation for the hackathon, marketing should be a major priority.
It will be really important for the DAO to pick up responsibility for marketing the SDK and Hackathon. If this is placed squarely on the BV/foundation it will not be what it could be if we all work together.
It will be important for these developers to have workers to test out their project ideas with.
Developers will have sandbox/testnets to see if and how their projects work. Effect Force workers will be able to sign up to be participants in these sandboxes. This would not be for EFX, but there would likely be some kind of reward for participation (not figured out yet, Rochelle is working on it).
This will be really beneficial to those participating in the hackathon to not be needing to find and pay for test workers.
This might require moderators from within the DAO to help out on.
HIGH GUARD:
The current HG members have been released on GitBook.
A dedicated HG space on GitBook will be created.
Names are listed in their EOS accounts and Discord names.
This is likely to change from the guide space into their own space.
This list includes the people who are active to some degree or other in the weekly HG meetings.
This list might have been bigger originally.
The weekly HG calls are not always well attended.
Sometimes there are only a few attending, other times there are more. There is inconsistency in attendance which is a problem.
Should the HG function as an on-call basis?
HG members be available to attend as required instead of every week, when there are some weeks with not much to discuss.
Either by being contactable, or
By members checking in daily to see if they are required.
There is a HG Discord channel that could be used to communicate alerts or be used to discuss items that might warrant a call or just a response on the discussion thread.
Is there an update on the high guard regarding changing of members?
Has an election been considered?
At this time, it is likely Chris and Jesse both feel the DAO isn’t ready to be opening up the HG to an election.
There is a likelihood of bad actors getting elected to the HG. Or people voting for the greatest influencer.
Perhaps a proposal to give a vote of confidence to the current HG membership, with the understanding that someone could be removed if they are seen to cause harm, if they are neglectful in their expected duties, or have otherwise lost the confidence of DAO members.
This would be more democratic, but would keep everything as is.
What are peoples’ thoughts regarding the HG taking on treasurer responsibilities?
It makes sense that the HG manage fund transactions. It makes sense that they could take on the role of treasurer, as well as a second, sober-thought body.
Yes, the HG could be a natural body to take on Treasurer responsibilities.
For example: a large allocation of funds given to developers to be distributed over time, the HG would be responsible for holding in trust those funds and then distributing as required outside of cycle distribution time frames.
ATM, managing money is not part of the directive of the HG, but perhaps it should be and the roles and responsibilities should be updated to include treasurer roles of direct fund management as required.
Direct fund management is not part of the original intent of the HG. It would be easier to give a treasurer role to the HG.
Perhaps a proposal to include treasurer responsibilities, as needed, as part of HG duties.
If the HG attendance is not strong, are there enough consistent attendees to become signers on a treasurer account?
Would all members need to be signers?
Would only a few members be required to be signers?
Communication and reporting from the HG is lacking.
HG should be considered a sub-group of the General DAO, therefore should be reporting to the DAO, either through a report presented at the weekly calls or through GitBook. Either would be acceptable.
There is communication in regard to a result of decisions regarding proposals that is reported on the proposals final outcome, but there are no reports on discussions or meeting minutes, and results of vote numbers that happen within the HG are not given (collectively or individually).
Whose job is it to structure the HG?
Jesse is a member of the HG, perhaps it is the job of the Foundation.
Mikel has volunteered to take on this task.
Perhaps, Mikel, Jesse, and someone who is a regular participant in the weekly DAO calls, such as Andre or Alan, to have representation from both groups coming together to do some planning.
This is a possibility.
Perhaps we should wait on what Mikel and the HG come up with, then have a few from the main DAO call group have input from both groups.
Rochelle is interested in becoming a HG member to give a strong representation to Effect Force and workers.
There is a strong sense that there is not enough representation on the HG who really understand Effect Force and it’s needs and requirements.
At this time, Rochelle doesn’t have a worker name to put forward that would have the understandings required to protect Effect Force.
Presently, she feels that workers are all just learning and that there isn’t anyone yet knowledgeable enough.
They need to be able to mitigate potential problems.
No one on the call was opposed to Rochelle and was favourable support given becoming a HG member.
Rochelle had asked to be an HG member initially and was not accepted.
Thoughts on this was that perhaps they didn’t want too many team/Foundation members on the HG.
Perhaps two names need to be presented to be added that are most familiar with the Force. There are no number restrictions on how many HG members there are.
Rochelle and one other
Eventually, the DAO will become responsible for white or black listing these dApps and companies that use Effect Force.
Rochelle feels strongly that there needs to be someone on the HG that is knowledgeable and really understands the impact of certain types of tasks and actions that can be done in tasks for the workforce, and how detrimental things can be.
Rochelle could nominate herself through a proposal stating her reason for being on the HG.
Rochelle’s name will be taken to the HG with support from this group to be on the HG.
Voting members into the HG:
Jesse, and others, may think it’s too soon to vote on members joining the HG doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
If a proposal was set to request membership into the HG, and the proposal passed, would the Foundation accept the vote results?
Moving to a vote may set a precedence for future people wanting to get into the HG little clicks being formed and then people voting each other in possibly taking over the HG.
This may not be avoidable – such is politics.
One of the bigger concerns about moving to a vote is that, short of those who attend the weekly calls regularly and a few others in the community, most people would be voting blind.
Most people don’t know what any of us individuals are like. There are only a few who’s names are recognized and online personas known.
Most members are not prominent or active in the chats and are not known well.
New people wanting to get involved may have no real understanding of what Effect Network is.
People who have been actively paying attention and are knowledgeable but are otherwise unknown and express interest in becoming a HG member would have a really challenging time getting peoples’ support because they were not known.
Ideas for potential proposals to initiate changes to the HG member acquisition system:
Without asking for any EFX, put to a yes or no vote to make the HG elected with a set date – for example Q1 of 2022, which would give time to figure out how to run the election.
People who want to stay in will put their names forward for continuance.
Then, other proposals of candidacy where people who want to put their name forward will run for election.
If the Foundation doesn’t feel that the HG is ready for voting yet they will just shelve this until they do feel the time is more appropriate.
Perhaps a system of approval (candidate) and 2nd an approval by proposal/vote (member) after the appointment might work. (consensus/vote model)
The open weekly DAO call group and the HG pre-endorse a candidate that is then put to a vote for final approval by the general DAO body.
Then if the vote passes the person becomes a full member in good standing until he or she either quits or is removed due to loss of confidence.
Current members who wish to remain members could be put up for an approval proposal. All who do not put their names forward for approval can be considers no longer members.
Perhaps the appointment process flows as such:
The name of a person interest is given to the weekly DAO call, which is open to all members, if in agreement then
the name is forwarded to the HG, if in agreement then
the HG puts forward the name in a proposal for vote of approval.
If either the weekly DAO call group or the HG group decide to not accept the proposed person then their reasons should be stated publicly.
The person would need to go through two decision bodies instead of one to avoid a single entity being in charge of agreeing with a person or not.
This way there are some control measures in place for deciding the person is first acceptable to the HG that begins with the open DAO call, and second there has been a public vote for approval from the DAO, and the name has been made public from the onset.
There could be problems with people simply voting because a candidate is endorsed.
It has been shown in previous vote patterns that current voters tend to have their own minds and will vote no if they personally do not agree.
People who don’t know the candidate, disagree with the candidate, or have no interest could vote no or abstain.
The reality is that the best candidates and the ones most likely to put their name forward for the HG are the people who are already attending the weekly DAO calls regularly or are very likely already active members in TG or Discord.
People are most likely to vote for the name they know or recognize.
Do we need something in the DAO Dashboard to allow for endorsements?
Some people might want to delegate their vote power to someone.
High Guards should have some qualification and skills that would be pertinent to the HG.
We don’t want people with no skills.
Having a clear definition of what the HG duties are.
What are the skills required for the HG.
Such as must have good English and a good understanding of English for communication purposes.
There should be rules set to maintain ethics.
Rules of conduct could be set.
Such as if caught bribing for votes is grounds for dismissal.
Compensation for the HG may be necessary.
The HG should perhaps be considered a Role of Responsibility and members be compensated.
As such perhaps there should be a limit upon how many members can join.
Something to be considered.
There are expectations of attendance to ensure efficiency of their expected role.
Their expected role carries a weight of protection.
While required actions are not frequent, the need to be en guarde is a constant.
Adding Treasurer duties to either certain members or to all members requires the responsibility to be available for signing as required. This would require being available on call.
There are hours that need to be dedicated to the HG.
These discussions should be had with Jesse and Chris.
Recommendations for a small group of weekly DAO call attendees and HG members should work together to define and structure the HG.
We need to get these in place prior to needing these structures to be active.
Any structure we build now could be changed in the future, but structures are needed.
OPEN DISCUSSION:
There has been some discussions on how to make the backpay of Network Fees most fair.
The best way would be to have a snapshot taken every cycle then the vote share can be gauged for each cycle. Then split the back pay between each cycle evenly, distributed according to vote weight.
This may not be they way they planned, as so far they have only used one snapshot for the backpays.
Snapshots are based on a block, so they could take 16 snapshots, or however many cycles are in the given time period, of each corresponding block.
If they take snapshots at reasonable intervals it would be more fair.
The only counter argument might be that the amount to be distributed might not warrant the amount of work required to take multiple snapshots.
Intervals of snapshots might not be too different to what they already have set up.
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: How will we run Effect Network once it is fully decentralized?
Think about how in the short future, Effect Network will be fully decentralized, this means fully managed by the DAO, at some point this will include management of the Foundation.
Consider that this means the DAO will be in charge of Effect Force. This includes the moderation of workers, the validation of workers, the management of the dApps and the requesters coming on to the platform, advertising and promoting Effect Network. This is being built out to be run and managed by the DAO, not just the BV.
The BV would still have their own dApps that they manage.
The DAO could have their own dApps that they own and manage.
The DAO would be the source for other BVs for support.
Think about this as we start constructing our structures and systems.
The DAO will be responsible for much more than just managing treasury fund spending to promote Effect Network and replenishment and smart contract maintenance.
It may be best to start thinking of Effect DAO as a decentralized business.
The sooner the structures are in place the better.
Exciting times, but with much responsibility.
Formally invite Chris and Jesse for next week.
Discuss points of today’s discussion on the HG.
On call vs weekly
GitBook setup and maintenance
Election vs endorsement
Treasurer role embedded into the prerogative of the HG
Give a recommendation to have Rochelle officially participate in the HG.
Get a progress update of the plan to market the Hackathon
In what way would the DAO best support this plan
OLD DISCUSSIONS (tabled)
Alternating times for DAO Calls to allow for greater participation.
Proposal is active.
Discuss further with team about incorporating worker pay in perpetuity of trained algorithms.
Potential Proposals:
Confidence vote in current HG membership, with conditions set to allow for removals and additions
Giving the HG general Treasurer responsibilities
Funds for the MasterChef contract over the next few cycles.
How to become a guardian guide
Using Effect Captions to update community made guide videos. Especially videos with lasting relevance. Could be used to promote Effect Captions.
Would need to include the quoted price points in the proposal
What languages would be prudent to put into the closed captions
English only would be about $20
Timeline
Proposals to the Foundation:
DAO Store start-up expenses
Hack-a-thon expenses
Tasks:
Create a report for the HG to give to Alan.
Invite Chris and Jesse to be on the call next week, August 11th
Listen to July 14th audio regarding future Foundation management
Vigor inquiry
Time zone proposal
Dashboard updates:
Reward calculator (P30)
Timeline
Token Flow Map (team should be working on this as per AMA discussions)
Worker of the Week into DAO dashboard (P29)
Filter system (DJ is considering working on this)
Ambassador TEAM google Drive
Discuss decentralized options or to create an interface to access IFPS storage
GitBook:
Guide on how to become a guardian
Was this helpful?