►
Description
Know Your MIP #18 – MIP97 & MIP98
January 31st, 2023
Description
The Know Your MIP call is an ongoing series of meetings used to introduce recently proposed MIPs and allow for a live back-and-forth discussion with their creators regarding the proposal’s impact on the DAO.
This MIP set is the evolution of Work-based Budgeting and aims to give the DAO better tools to enable a decentralized workforce. MIP97 - DAO-level Objective Framework - is a consensus tool for Governance to define work, while MIP98 - Work Proposal Framework - is a coordination tool for enabling funding in exchange for value.
Agenda
Presentation
Discussion
Links
MIP97 – https://forum.makerdao.com/t/mip97-the-dao-level-objective-framework/19390
MIP98 – https://forum.makerdao.com/t/mip98-the-work-proposal-framework/19391
Timestamps
0:00 Introduction
1:16 Presentation
8:05 Discussion
Disclaimer
This communication is provided for information purposes only. The views and opinions expressed in this meeting are those of people involved and do not reflect the official policy or position of MakerDAO or any of its contributors, Core Units, or affiliates. This communication makes no representations about the enduring accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for a given situation. This content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, financial, or tax advice. You should consult your own advisers as to those matters. References to any digital assets and the use of finance-related terminology are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute any recommendation for any action or an offer to provide investment, financial, or other advisory services.
mips.makerdao.com
forum.makerdao.com
chat.makerdao.com
A
C
What
I'd
like
to
do
today
is
just
give
a
brief
overview
of
recapping,
some
of
the
things
that
were
talked
about
on
the
GNR,
and
then
we
could
dive
into
the
mips
themselves
for
going
into
more
of
the
yeah
details
for
the
lips
and
things
that
could
potentially
be
improved,
kicking
things
off.
Then
this
is
again
really
the
evolution
of
the
project-based
budgeting
that
we
presented
back
in
August,
which
really
talked
about
separating
the
work
from
the
workforce
and
aligning
expectations
around
funding
and
the
creation
of
value.
C
We'll
get
into
the
specific
specifics
of
this
a
little
bit
later
once
we
actually
start
looking
at
the
mips.
But
the
important
thing
to
highlight
here
is
that
it
encourages
explicit
outcomes
and
it's
again
that
platform
that
could
potentially
unlock
other
concepts
for
the
Dallas
like
budgeting
across
the
entire
Dao
and
projects
or
a
lightweight
prioritization
mechanism
as
well
work
proposals,
then,
are
the
the
vehicle,
that's
more
similar
to
say
a
MIP
40
or
an
SPF.
C
This
is
for
assigning
the
work
to
a
team
as
well
as
describing
maybe
some
of
the
intangibles
or
the
competitive
advantages
of
that
team.
That's
working
to
win
the
opportunity
from
the
Dow
and
deliver
the
work,
and
it
also
creates
an
environment
for
competition
to
manifest
between
the
teams.
Compare
them
a
little
bit
better
if
there
are
multiple
submitters
or
at
least
give
governance
insights
into
how
the
work
will
be
done,
potentially
any
challenges
that
may
pop
up
and
again
just
for
the
refined
expectations.
C
But
this
side
it's
focused
on
the
workforce,
delivering
the
work
instead
of
defining
the
overall
outcome
and
the
value
and
what
we
are
hoping
to
drive
with
this
process
is
focusing
on
the
graphic
and
the
the
bottom
middle
is
having
these
two
Concepts
meet.
Focus
on
work
would
create
more
value
in
both
the
short
term
and
the
long
term,
compared
to
some
of
the
current
Frameworks
that
we're
using
today.
C
And
then,
overall
fitting
it
with
governance.
Just
before
again
we
dive
into
the
nodes
themselves
right
now
we're
trying
to
design
a
process
that
basically
has
each
subroposal
in
a
RFC,
Frozen
and
voting
period
of
about
a
month
so
from
submission
to
ratification.
It's
about
30
days
or
four
weeks
open
at
any
feedback
there
before
we
lock
the
lip
down
for
Frozen
and
yeah.
C
C
If
you
guys
can
see
my
screen,
this
is
lip
97,
which
is
the
dowel
objective
framework
and
please
this
is
meant
to
be
interactive,
happy
to
monologue
up
here.
But
if
there's
any
available,
import
or
or
places
that
we'd
like
to
take.
This
discussion
today
would
happy
to
have
this
audience
LED.
Since
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
on
the
GNR
talking
about
some
of
these
Concepts
already.
A
I
was
actually
going
to
ask
if
there
are
any
questions
or
comments.
I
think
that
the
main
motivation,
and
to
summarize
it
in
30
seconds
the
the
idea
of
this,
is
to
separate
the
work
from
the
implementation.
So,
for
example,
someone
or
we
notice
that
in
some
some
cases,
some
core
units,
let
me
see
if
I
can
so
some
core
units
actually
when
they
present
a
budget.
The
conversation
is
very
different
from
this
core
unit
will
not
be
able
to
deliver.
A
We
do
not
like
the
the
implementation
versus
this
work
needs
to
be
done,
but
not
by
this
core
unit.
So
one
is:
should
we
do
this
and
the
other
one
is
how
and
who
should
do
it.
So
the
idea
of
this
is
mainly
to
separate
that
thing,
which
has
been
contaminating
the
the
discussion
the
last
couple
of
months
last
years,
and
the
other
thing
that
we
we
were
intending
is
right.
Now
we
have
the
the
mid
13,
which
is
Declaration
of
intent,
which
is
very
non-concrete,
let's
say
so.
A
With
this
one
could
actually
propose
like
hey.
We
would
like
to
have
this
work
done.
These
are
the
the
Milestones
you
hit
and
potentially
attach
like
a
like
a
budget,
and
if
that
gets
approved,
that's
pretty
much
signaling
the
whole
Community
like
hey
maker
is
I,
don't
know
it's,
it's
almost
like
a
job
description
or
a
job
opening
where,
where
people
can
say
like
yeah,
this
is
great.
We
want
to
do
it
so
we'll
submit
a
work
proposal
to
that.
A
That
has
not
been
happening
yet,
so
it
was
harder
for
the
more
active
Delegate.
For
example,
we
have
a
Frank
or
rap
here
that
that
we're
actually
contributing
with
different
with
different
Maps.
So
this
could
be
another
tool
for
them
to
to
actually
go
ahead
and
unpropos,
something
that's
more
concrete,
yeah
I,
don't
know.
If
there's
any
comments
or
or
we
can,
we
can
keep.
D
C
There
would
be
17
separate
teams
and
the
restrictions
underneath
that
team,
so
if
they're
wanted
to
be
some
sort
of
credentials
or
or
something
proven,
as
we
continued
on
end
game,
that
could
potentially
be
different,
badges
or
reputation-based
nfts
that
are
required
in
order
to
allow
somebody
to
to
basically
qualify,
then
the
thinking
being
some
projects
could
be
open,
could
be
more
of
like
a
bounty
too.
Do
this
work
submit
it
and
potentially
receive
payment
through
the
work
proposal.
E
C
Yeah
in
in
the
current
structure
as
well,
I
think
the
the
better
example
here
may
be
something
say
better
related
to
end
game
products
so
and
a
DLo
could
be
created
for
the
creation
of
Elixir,
saying
that
it's
outside
of
the
current
scope
of
work
and
mandate
and
teams
potentially
need
to
expand.
Teams
that
want
to
submit
to
contribute
to
the
Elixir
project
then,
would
submit
a
work
proposal
that
basically
says
here's
our
our
funding
request.
The
DLo
would
and
could
potentially
request
specific
reporting
parameters.
C
So
if
we
want
the
project
to
be
run
more
as
a
core
unit,
the
the
auditing
framework
for
an
example
could
be
the
requested
reporting
method.
Otherwise
it
could
be
presented
as
a
single
line
item.
So
it's
more
of
a
vendor
type
relationship,
but
basically
saying
here's
the
budget
for
the
project
you
manage
your
funds
are
correctly
and
we
we
really
don't
need
to
see
that
insight
into
the
the
HR
and
some
of
the
complexities
that
the
end
game
is
trying
to
move
the
dough
away
from.
A
Again,
to
add
to
that,
I
think
that
if,
if
an
ecosystem
actor
wants
to
to
work
on
something
that
there's
no
DLo,
for
that
means
that
governance
has
not
yet
approved
that
objective,
meaning
that
they
potentially
work
or
they
want
to
work
on
a
direction
that
maker
hasn't
considered
yet.
So
in
that
case,
we
do
a
vision,
an
ecosystem
actor
actually
proposing
a
DLo.
And,
of
course,
if
you're,
if
you're
proposing
a
solution,
you
should
address
the
the
objective
of
the
or
the
problem
that
you're
that
you're
trying
to
solve
or
improve.
A
So
we
think
that
this
is
a
good
discussion.
That's
Point
number
one
and
point
number
two:
this
will
actually
help
with
the
with
competition
right
because
I
don't
know,
let's
say
that
who's
here,
let's
say
that
Peyton
right,
okay,
governance
needs
to
do
a
b
and
c
then
potentially
go
off.
Has
a
good
work
proposal
to
work
on
that
yellow,
but
anyone
could
come
any
ecosystem
actor
could
come
and
be
like.
Oh,
we
actually
have
we.
We
can
do
it
for
cheaper
or
we.
A
C
And
to
touch
on
the
comment
that
it
was
just
made
to
talking
about
potentially
rewording
the
example
provided
here,
that's
the
whole
point
of
the
RFC
process,
so
teams
and
and
delegates
or
you
know,
potentially,
teams
that
want
to
submit
a
work
proposal
against
a
can
engage
during
the
overall
like
deal
clarification
stage
of
drafting
a
dll
to
clarify
some
of
these
words,
but
just
to
highlight
this
is
just
an
example.
So
it's
not
one
that
we
would
actively
look
to
put
up
in
its
current
state.
F
Could
I
comment
briefly
on
the
EAS
making
the
yellow
proposals?
Please
so
I'm
wondering
if
you're
going
to
end
up
in
a
situation
where
EA's
submit
both
the
DLo
and
a
what's,
the
one
called
regardless
State
submit
both
at
the
same
time
right
so
a
preposition
97,
and
it's
98
and
that'll
mean
that
the
dealers
proposed
like
that,
will
always
be
like
kind
of
specifically
written
to
only
fit,
not
only
fit
but
primarily
fit
like
one.
F
Yes,
you
know
what
they
want
right,
so
I'm
wondering
if
it's
worth
having
some
sort
of
guard
in
there
right
that
says
something
like
you
know,
you
can't
propose
both
from
the
same
person
in
the
same
cycle
or
something
right.
So
there's
at
least
like
a
month
for
like
other
yeah,
you
used
to
look
at
it
and
potentially
competes
I
mean.
Obviously,
governments
can
just
can
kind
of
create
the
expectation
that
those
will
be
voted
down
if
it
happens
in
the
same
month.
But
I
don't
know.
This
is
something
that
kind
of
occurred.
F
A
That's
that's
fair
right
and,
and
potentially
you
could
propose
a
DLo
saying
the
work
proposals
should
have
I,
don't
know
long
for
wisdom
as
a
candidate
and
then
we're
hoping
that
the
community
will
come
and
and
criticize
the
the
DLo
to
the
extent
that
that
this
would
yeah
actually
make
for
it.
Yeah
for
for
a
competition.
A
Yeah,
that's
that's
a
good
point.
We
thought
about
it.
We
don't
know
how
much
it
would
be
like
a
fair,
a
fair
number
to
wait
for
everyone
else
for
the
competition.
That's
why
we
we
said.
Potentially
we
can
study
that
zero
in
the
very
beginning,
but
but
yeah
like
how
much
do
we
wait
like
two
weeks,
two
months,
I,
don't
know
it's
a
at
some
point:
it's
like
if
no
one's
coming
or
there's
no
competition
coming
then
then
you're
you're
making
everything
slow
to
actually
start
projects,
but
yeah.
F
I
think
that
is
just
a
certain
expectation
for
like
he
is
that,
like
they
shouldn't,
be
writing
dlos
that
like
currently
work
for
them
and
specifically
like
targeted
around
what
they
can
provide,
and
they
should
be
written
such
that,
like
you
know,
ideally
they're
best.
They
represent
like
the
best
interests
of
maker
right
because,
like
the
idea
is
that
they
do
the
work
proposals
based
on
what
they
can
provide.
But
the
dlos
should
be
I.
Imagine
should
be
sort
of
written
primarily
to
benefit
maker
right.
C
No
definitely
not
it's
it's
up
to
governance.
So
say
the
government
puts
out
an
RFP
and
they
get
no
responses
or
bad
responses.
They
don't
have
to
pick
any
of
those
projects
just
won't
get
funded
and
if
anything
the
deal
will
expire
and
have
to
be
renewed.
There's
no
proposals
or
one
bad
proposal
submitted
against
it.
D
Yeah
I
was
just
gonna
kind
of
respond
to
what
long
was
saying
a
bit.
I
mean
I'm,
not
sure
how
useful
those
kind
of
rules
would
be
because
in
practice,
I
could
get.
I
could
write
a
proposal
and
send
it
to
someone
else
and
ask
them
to
post
it,
and
then
I
can
put
up
my
work
proposal
for
that
DLo,
so
I.
D
You
know
that
it's
really
easy
to
circumvent
any
of
those
kind
of
rules,
so
it
might
just
which
is
kind
of
the
issues
we've
had
with
lots
of
things
in
the
past
to
whether
it's
just
easier
to
have
it.
You
know
transparent
and
open,
and
then
people
can
judge
it
for
what
it
is.
You
know
this
yeah
we've
got
this
work
proposal,
but
hang
on
that's
the
same
person
that
wrote
the
dll.
Maybe
we
should
think
carefully
about
whether
or
not
we
want
to
accept
it
all.
F
Right,
yeah
I
think
it's
more
about
setting
the
expectation
clearly
that
we
don't
want
that
to
be
the
pattern
through
which
this
is
used
like
whether
that's
by
a
direct
like
you
know,
prohibition
or
whether
that's
just
a
line
in
the
map
that
says,
please
don't
do
this
right
like
the
way.
This
is
not
how
this
intended
to
be
used.
C
F
Sorry
sorry,
one
relationship
they
don't
shut
up
so
have
you
can
I
might
have
missed
this
when
I
read
it,
but
have
you
considered
that,
like
there
needs
to
be
some
sort
of
like
timeline
defined
for
like
when
it
proposals
are
expected
right?
So,
like
you
know,
if
one
proposal
comes
in
like
one
month
after
right,
then
governance
are
comparing
against
nothing
else.
You
know,
and
there
might
be
like
another
one
a
month
three
or
one
four
or
something
so
should
there
be
sort
of
a
timeline
to
say.
C
Yeah
I
I
definitely
think
that's
an
important
thing
and
I
think
with
the
way
that
the
MIP
is
structured.
Today
there
there
there's
the
available
option
for
authors
to
require
that
within
the
text,
I
I
think
from
a
editor's
standpoint.
As
written
I
know,
the
team
may
not
have
a
ton
of
time
to
spend
with
it,
but
putting
in
those
sort
of
like
delays
or
expectations,
I
believe
or
it
could
be
bespoke
per
DLo,
but
yeah
as
as
yeah.
A
Apply
everything
also
long.
There
could
be
several
work
proposals
attached
to
the
to
a
DLo
like,
for
example,
we
could
say
we
want
diet
to
be
integrated
across
the
world
or
in
I,
don't
know
developing
countries,
and
then
someone
could
apply
with
a
worker
bosses
and
we'll
do
latam
the
other
one
could
be
like.
We
will
do
APAC
so,
potentially
more
than
one
work
proposal
could
fit
or
actually
more
than
one
would
be
at
the
same
time,
working
for
the
same
DLo
without
actually
competing.
F
G
So
there's
a
an
RFC
period
for
your
dllo,
where
the
DLo
gets,
refined
and
then
I
think
that's
basically
the
same
question
that
that
long
had
I
can
specify
the
period
for
for,
like
there's,
basically
like
a
request
for
proposal
right
and
then
I
can
specify
this
amount.
This
this
this
time
window
where
proposals
can
surface,
is
that
correct.
C
Yeah,
let
me
find
the
slide
real,
quick
but
yeah
in
the
DLo
example.
Then
there's
there's
two
timelines
to
keep
in
mind:
there's
the
expiry
of
the
DLo
itself.
So
that's
basically
like
the
open
submission
window
for
work,
proposals
to
be
submitted
and
have
teams
win
and
then
there's
a
separate
timeline
for
the
work
to
be
delivered.
So
one
example
could
be
say:
a
growth
Focus
DLo.
We
want
to
attract,
attract
x,
many
users.
C
C
So
that
could
be
something
like
you
know,
a
one
month,
targeted
campaign
for
some
specific
meta
concept
or
or
just
overall
branding
or
something
like
that,
the
the
open
window
for
that
campaign
to
start
and
be
delivered
is
you
know
a
year,
but
once
an
agreement
is
started
with
a
Workforce
team,
they
only
have
one
month
to
deliver
for
that
example.
But
those
would
be
the
two
like
lovers,
then
the
the
governance
and
delegates
would
potentially
have
to
to
correctly
shape
the
priorities
and
concerns
of
the
Dao.
C
One
additional
feature
too
that
I
wanted
to
highlight
here
too,
going
back
to
Juan's
point
of
potentially
having
multiple
work
proposals
submitted
against
one
DLo.
If
a
DLo
requires
some
sort
of
cross-core
unit
collaboration,
this
isn't
a
primary
focus,
but
something
that
can
come
from
it
is
that
the
handoff
between
teams
was
potentially
a
little
messy
or
you
know,
just
not
overall
efficient
with
the
DLo
structure
then
potentially
enables
is
that
multiple
teams
can
work
in
a
collaborated
sense,
but
it's
based
on
Milestones.
C
So
then,
teams
aren't
necessarily
over
investing
or
wasting
time
until
the
reporting
and
the
actual
deliverable
feeding
into
their
Milestone
is
then
delivered,
which
would
in
a
sense
you
know,
kind
of
tag
them
in
to
start
delivering
work
against
it
again
is
this
platform
concept,
and
that's
why
we
want
to
include
this
section
of
best
practices,
which
is
currently
still
marked
with
the
work
in
progress.
That's
something
where
I
am
looking
for
feedback
as
well.
G
C
B
Wondering
if
you
could
talk
a
little
bit
about
some
of
like
the
levers
and
incentives
for
for
accountability,
retro,
like
using
your
example
here,
like
let's
say
a
group
goes
out
there.
They
do
a
bunch
of
research,
but
they
come
back
with
a
structure.
That's
just
like
kind
of
objectively
leaves
our
contributors
open
to
Legal
liability,
to
use
something
concrete
like
what
then
like.
C
Yeah,
that's
a
really
good
question
and
I
may
try
to
throw
it
back
on
you
with
talking
about
the
arbitration
scope
a
little
bit,
but
in
in
reality
again.
The
these
myths
were
designed
with
with
one
intent
in
mind,
which
was
focus
on
the
the
funding
mechanisms.
Arbitration
type
concepts
of
what
you're
describing
I
believe
are
needed,
but
it
was
intentional
decision
to
potentially
leave
those
out
or
leave
them
lightweight
just
to
allow
the
Dow
to
continue
operating,
how
it
has
today.
C
So
if
a
signal,
Pole
or
or
some
other
sort
of
polling
would
be
required
to
be
triggered
by
a
facilitator
in
the
light
of
an
event
that
I
think
would
be
the
the
best
course
of
action
today
and
then
maturing
that
out.
This
is
both
needed
for
end
game,
but
would
also
pay
dividends.
Then,
in
the
short
run
for
Doos
as
well.
F
F
What's
in
the
DLo,
because
they're
leaving
that
to
delegates
again,
it's
kind
of
I
mean
it
would
maybe
work,
but
it
is
sort
of
lazy
and
not
sort
of
super.
Not
lazy.
People
like
it's
in
a
bad
way
right,
but
like
expecting
the
delegates
to
do
that
is
sort
of
it's
not
terribly
reliable
that
they
will
at
least
not
consistently
so
I
mean
my
sort
of
idea
was
that
maybe
even
the
dla
framework,
you
define
a
point
of
contacts.
F
You
know
like
connected
to
the
DLo,
who
is
then
sort
of
the
point
of
contact,
for
you
know
essentially
on
the
side
of
the
Dow
who
can
like
who
sort
of
handles
like
this
other
day-to-day
work.
Stuff
right,
like
I,
think
in
most
of
the
cases
where,
like
I
was
working
with
EA
is
as
like
a
facilitator
of
God
Alpha.
F
It
was
pretty
much
always
necessary
to
kind
of
Define
like
a
product
owner
or
like
a
person
on
Maker's
side
who
sort
of
could
describe
and
kind
of
clarify
like
what
worked
and
what
didn't
and
what
made
sense.
And
what
didn't
I
know.
The
sort
of
idea
is
for
all
that
to
be
kind
of
well
documented
in
the
DLo,
but
I
don't
think
it's
kind
of
possible
to
cover
everything
in
those
sorts
of
documents,
so
yeah,
I,
guess
I,
just
yeah
I
suspect.
F
B
We
think
this
system
design
still
specifies
you
know
all
the
things
that
were
laid
out
in
in
the
dll
map,
but
we
want
to
be
sure
right.
We
don't
want
to
bring
something
bad
to
governance
like
the
first
thing
they're
going
to
do
is
reach
out
to
probably
someone
like
Patrick
and
I
and
say:
hey
does.
Does
this
still
count
and
then
we're
kind
of
put
in
that
awkward
system
of
of
of
yeah
arbitration
or
I
guess
even
before?
C
And
I
I
think
what
you
both
are
describing
is
a
good
application
of
cbcs
or
dvcs
that
the
end
game
will
be
introducing
the
pregame
Constitution
will
be
introducing,
and
if
we
look
at
this
through
the
lens
of
organizational
change,
this
is
really
creating
demand
for
that
new
structure
or
giving
them
an
opportunity
to
build
and
coalesce
and
debate
provide
value
through
the
assessment
of
dlos.
What
you're
also
describing,
then,
is
the
facilitator,
Dao
being
that
point
of
contact
for
the
cbcs
to
kind
of
assess
the
work.
C
So
we
see
those
structures
emerging
and
those
are
a
little
bit
more
long
run
so
similar
to
how
work-based
budgeting
will
be
potentially
feeding
into
scope
and
framework
funding.
We
would
see
those
next
mechanisms
that
you're,
describing
as
the
lead-in
to
the
quarterly
meetings
and
and
facilitator,
does
running
budgets.
I,
don't
think
it's
inappropriate
for
a
DLo
to
be
written
than
for
a
core
unit
or
a
Workforce
seemed
to
basically
play
Vendor,
Manager
and
I.
C
Potentially
then,
if
some
of
this
work
needs
an
expert
group
to
assess
it
more
readily
on
the
behalf
of
maker
governance,
that
that
can
be
a
requirement,
then
stating
the
workforce
requirement.
Is
they
have
to
have
this
expertise?
You
have
to
be
a
core
unit
and
this
work
is
dedicated,
then,
through
a
vendor,
an
ecosystem
actor
just
as
a
workaround
answer
for
its
current
state.
F
F
F
Yeah,
like
I,
still
think
so,
so
one
of
the
things
that
we
could
see
that
is
potentially
bad.
That
may
happen
without
this
sort
of
thing
as
well.
Is
that
if
dllos
get
passed
that,
like
the
author
writes
but
doesn't
want
to
take
responsibility
for
then
that's
essentially
like
pushing
responsibility
for
that.
F
B
It's
maybe
retro,
could
you
talk
a
little
bit
about,
like
obviously
one
advantage
is:
is
structural
right
compared
to
the
current
options
that
exists
for
for
funding
right?
This
is
literally
breaking
it
out
into
two
separate
processes
for
approving
work
and
then
improving
the
the
labor
essentially
to
to
get
it
done.
C
Where
I
would
be
looking
to
position,
dlos
is,
is
the
just
enabling,
like
I,
said
this
concept
of
like
a
modular
governance,
where
maintenance
work
is
done
in
one
fashion,
Innovation
is
done
in
one
fashion.
Maybe
growth
is
done
in
another,
like
particular
engagement,
and
the
doo
has
just
really
signify
like
this
is
what
we're
expecting.
This
is
what
we're
wanting
delivered
and
again
it's
just
it's
defining
the
work
around
consensus
and
the
workforce
around
coordination
like
that,
that's
really
what
I
would
kind
of
label
97
and
98,
as
so.
C
Some
other
potential
features
then
could
be
saying
like
if
we
look
at
the
real
world
example.
Real
world
asset
example
from
2020
to
there
was
a
project
within
the
cmoth
group
about
researching
legal
structures.
The
structuring
the
work
around
something
that's
a
little
bit
more
deliverable,
focused
I,
think
makes
the
core
unit
work,
accessible
and
and
really
unlocks
the
information.
C
That's
been
siled
within
teams
or
potentially
buried
in
lengthy
Forum
posts
to
at
least
put
together
some
sort
of
catalog,
then
of
saying
here's
all
the
work
that's
going
on
is
providing
a
better
layer
of
transparency
and
as
different
dashboards
and
toolkits
are
built
out.
I
I
think
that's
what
this
really
lays
is
the
foundation
for
a
functional
specification
document
to
say
how?
How
does
this
interface
look
and
then
turns
governance
into
a
more
user
experience?
Focus
process
instead
of
bureaucracy.
E
C
So
again,
it
I
think
everybody
benefits
from
having
a
very
disappointed,
detailed
view
of
the
workforce
today
and
in
the
future.
So
when
we're
talking
about
that
concept
of
oversight,
it's
kind
of
built
into
the
plan,
all
work
has
to
go
through
sub-dos.
So
there
is
that
built-in,
like
assessment
oversight,
function
where,
if
the
work
isn't
delivered
and
the
scope
doesn't
approve
it,
then
the
subdo's
penalized.
C
C
If
we
start
to
move
some
of
this
work
over
but
again
bit
40s
will
still
exist,
spfs
will
still
exist
and
those
current
mechanisms,
don't
necessarily
have
the
improvements
that
we're
talking
about
today
on
this
call,
which
is
why
I
think
it's
a
prime
opportunity
to
create
a
tool.
That's
up
to
our
current
best
practices
that
lays
the
foundation
for
future
best
practices
specific
to
end
game,
but
then
also
operationally
creates
value
for
the
teams
in
the
Dow
today
to
incentivize
and
fund
work.
C
E
And
just
to
make
sure
I
understood
it.
You
said
there
was
some
penalties.
Well,
obviously,
there's
some
on
the
arbitration
of
incentives
and
penalties
of
the
end
game
included
there,
but
is
that
what
you're
relating
to
when
you're
saying
that,
if
DLo
is
proposed
by
a
sub-dial
and
then
you
know
an
ecosystem
actor
maliciously
bids
on
it
and
it's
colluded
between
the
subdial
and
the
EA?
C
Somebody
in
the
end
game
forum
brought
up
that
concept
too,
about
like
sub-dials
perishing
and
potentially
being
off-boarded
like
I
I.
Think
the
intent
of
the
subdial
is
to
kind
of
just
be
like
a
health
indicator
of
the
workforce.
So
if
they're
not
performing
The,
Token
price
goes
down.
Potentially
new
governance
moves
in
and
can
clean
up
the
subdo
kind
of
like
a
takeover
for
an
unhealthy
business.
C
The
penalty
concept,
then
I
believe,
is
only
assessed
to
the
subdo
and
we'll
have
to
work
on
the
concept
of
how
ecosystem
actor
work
is
reported
because
again,
the
the
the
subdial
is
supposed
to
be
that
barrier
for,
like
the
workforce,
bureaucracy
and
back
and
forth.
So
then
just
the
work
is
focused
on,
so
it
would
probably
be
an
ecosystem
scope
framework
requirement
of
how
ecosystem
actor
work
is
tracked.
C
So
then
subdos
have
some
way
to
select
good
vendors,
but
ultimately
the
penalties
would
just
fall
into
the
subdo
from
maker
governance
and
then
sub-downs
themselves
and
their
local
governance
could
come
up
with
their
own
SLA
or
penalty
system
for
the
teams
that
they
work
with
correct
me.
If
I
got
anything
wrong
there,
Peyton
long
says
that
there
are
no
subdes
at
the
moment.
I
don't
see.
These
mips
can
take
them
into
account
at
the
stage
yeah
exactly
so.
A
A
Hopefully,
never
spfs
are
very
yeah,
they're,
very
non-restrictive.
Maybe
that's
a
good
thing.
So,
if
you
say
hey
I,
don't
know
if
someone
counts
with
or
or
has
a
lot
of
trust
from
the
community
and
has
maybe
two
minutes
to
draft
something.
Let's
say
long
is
like
hey:
I
need
money.
Trust
me,
this
is
important.
Give
me
49k,
maybe
the
SP
a
bit
better,
but
the
way
we
see
it
is
that
this
will
actually
force
people
to
have
this
conversation
of
what
needs
to
be
done.
A
B
G
G
What
I
really
like
about
it
is
you
define
and
please
correct
me
if
I'm
getting
it
wrong,
like
you
define
the
work,
that
maker
is
trying
to
get
done,
and
then
you
have
these
kind
of
submissions
of
ecosystem
actors
who
say
like
hey
I
can't
do
this
I
can
do
this.
I
can
do
this
and
in
a
way,
so
you
have
like
this
kind
of
matching
process
at
the
back
end
and
I.
G
A
G
A
We
need
a
portal
to
organize
information,
so
hopefully
the
DLo
looks
a
little
bit
more
elaborate
and
the
portal
is
just
step
one
out
of
10
or
however
many
steps
you
need
to
actually
deliver
something
that
produces
value
and
and
this
would
help
to
eliminate
all
these
MVPs
that
need
a
lot
of
maintenance
and
and
are
eventually
forgotten
and
left
behind.
So
if
you
say,
hey
the
the
working
objective
is
to
have
this
in
this
way,
then
people
can
can
start
working
towards
it.
A
I
A
Against
that
and
you
could
have
a
more
comprehensive
way
right
now
with
the
SPF
he's
like
hey
I'll,
do
this
and
it's
like?
Oh,
it
sounds
like
a
great
idea
and
yeah
not
to
rain
in
your
parade.
But
maybe
if
this
portal
is
never
used
or
never
filled
with
actual
content,
then
it
would
be
a
really
bad
idea
and
in
retrospective
it's
like
okay.
How
could
how
could
you
have
done
it
better
with
the
DLo?
You
have
this
kind
of
tool
which
you
say
hey.
A
G
I
D
I
That
Rune
raises
is
that
we
have
core
units,
they
do
the
work
and
it's
about
it's
a
black
box
and
we
don't
really
have
in
some
cases
the
ability
to
dive
down
into
what's
actually
happening
there
so
and
I
may
be
wrong.
But
from
listening
to
ruin
talk
about
the
governance,
Security
Council,
he
was
talking
about
an
entity
or
a
position.
What
menu
that
defines
work
to
be
done
or
I
guess,
takes
input
from
the
community
and
says
hey.
We
want
to
do
this
and
I'm
wondering.
I
A
A
A
Someone
like
I,
don't
know
Patrick
would
say:
hey
I
need
I,
don't
know
someone
to
help
me
reviewing
the
the
code
every
every
week.
I
think
this
is
going
to
cost
this
for
the
next
six
months.
So
here's
a
work
proposal
to
actually
fund
this
contributor.
So
you
could
see
how
you
first
said
the
the
objective
and
then
you
have
all
the
workforces
that
fit
into
that
objective
for
making
it
long
term
or
also
to
actually
work
as
something
operational.
I
F
F
C
Yeah
and
if
you
look
at
the
structures
of
the
Dow
and
the
information
that
we've
been
handed
appreciating,
that
it
could
still
change,
I
I
think
it
makes
the
way
that
I'm
kind
of
drawing
it
up
on
the
Whiteboard
right
now
is
a
scope
framework
has
articles.
The
Scopes
are
defined
where
the
primary
receives
eighty
percent
of
the
annual
budget
20
for
the
supporting
Scopes.
So
now,
when
you're
sitting
down
with
the
scope
meeting,
you
have
some
way
to
say:
okay.
Well,
how
is
that
20
divided?
C
C
So
going
back
to
Derek's
example
of
the
governance
and
security
scope,
the
Omnibus
submission
process
could
have
a
single
DLo
within
the
governance
security
framework.
That
DLo
is
on
basically
a
year
agreement
where
a
team
is
providing
services
to
that
scope,
which
is
the
Omnibus
process.
S
teams
are
then
submitting
work
to
the
submitting
work,
proposals
against
ELO
say
for
other
Frameworks
like
real
world
assets
or
decentralized
collateral.
C
Then
they
would
have
to
budget
in
the
cost
in
order
to
produce
the
spell
in
their
work
proposal,
but
then
the
governance
and
security
scope
themselves
would
have
their
own
like
budget
to
operate
the
process.
So
it's
a
little
bit
of
like
this
recursive
function,
where
it's
like.
Oh
you
know,
for
the
Omnibus
spell.
How
much
is
it
going
to
cost
me
that
needs
to
go
into
work
proposal
for
one
type
of
project
and
then
for
the
Dow
management
side?
It's
what
does
it
cost
to
keep
the
lights
on
in
this
new
paradigm?
C
Yeah
to
artem's
point
he
asked:
is
there
a
process
to
make
a
ecosystem
actor
official
I?
Think
that's
still
TBD.
If
there's
going
to
be
some
sort
of
like
rating
system
or
not,
but
if
I
was
running
a
facilitator
now,
I
think
I'd
be
trying
to
make
a
an
Angie's
List
type
setup
for
ecosystem
actors,
regardless.
A
Yeah
and
I
was
going
to
say
you
can
I
think
they're
a
separate
things.
One
is
a
funding
tool
that
we're
trying
to
to
create,
which
is
ideally
an
improvement
from
what
we
have.
But
if
you
wanted
to
start
I
don't
know
a
month
ago,
you
could
have
have
your
own
company
and
then
propose
an
SPF.
If,
if
these
two
I
don't
know,
if
you
feel
that
it's
not
ready
or
that
it's
not
your
liking,
you
can
use
the
other
tools
that
that
governance
has
to
to
fund.
So
they're
unrelated
topics.
H
F
C
C
E
D
Well,
that's
up
to
Retro
really
when
he
wants
to
submit
it,
but
I.
Think
February
was
his
Target
last
I
heard,
but
it's
important
to
remember
this
isn't
replacing
net
40.
You
know
core
units
can
still
request
budgets
through
mid
40
if
they
want.
This
is
just
a
different
tool
for
dispersing
funding
for
the
Dell.
C
There
are
some
late
edits,
but
since
it's
not
overly
binding
and
not
a
core
mechanism
like
the
mid-40s
would
be
for
the
core
units,
I
I
would
feel
comfortable,
pushing
it
in
its
current
state,
with
a
little
bit
of
more
polish
on
it
to
just
simply
enable
than
the
funding
for
some
of
the
immediate
things
we
need
with
endgame
and
then
look
to
heavily
amend
it
over
the
next
couple.
Cycles.
A
I
was
thinking
retro,
that
when
we
did
the
core
units
mipset
with
the
MIP
40,
the
the
moveset
came
with
the
first
sub
proposals
at
the
same
time,
so
it
was
conditional
that
the
mipset
got
approved
so
potentially
we
could
start
working
with
the
well
with
the
different
clusters
or
or
interested
parties.
I
want
to
to
have
these
things
done
and
we
could
kind
of
like
do
this
feedback
where
okay,
we
are
missing
this
section,
or
this
could
be
great
here,
so
we
could
have.
A
F
We
kind
of
end
it
using
the
weekly
cycle
as
well
like
for
the
first
period
of
time
after
it's
passed.
I
can't
remember
if
it's
one
month
or
three
months,
but
so
that's
also
an
option
three
hours
yeah.
So
you
could
do
that.
It's
just
annoying,
because
I
need
to
do
another
one
to
write
the
proposal
as
well
as
the
amendment.
C
F
C
And
to
paper's
point
of
being
against
the
funny
vehicle
system
actors,
this
necessarily
wouldn't
solely
be
focused
on
that
the
the
dlos
would
be
separate
than
the
framework,
but
so
yeah.
If
conceptually
the
framework
makes
sense
in
your
mind
and
you
would
want
to
see
things
say.
Potentially
an
SPF
is
submitted
and
recommend
them
to
make
a
deal
instead
to
increase
confidence.
That's
the
sort
of
feedback,
we'd
love
to
hear.
C
But
while
we're
waiting
for
any
more
questions
overall,
it
seems
like
we
have
been
seeking
some
positive
feedback.
We
do
have
two
days
left.
Please
feel
free
to
contact
me
discorder
through
the
Forum
or
any
other
method.
This
will
be
the
primary
focus
through
Wednesday
to
get
this
finished
and
yeah
we're
so
excited
to
to
see
it
take,
take
shape
and
team's
already
reaching
out
to
us
to
potentially
position
their
their
their
future
funding
requests
through
it.