🔍
RnDAO workspace
/
🧽
Network Goods Institute
/
đź“ť
Product Documents
/
Stakeholders and their needs + Value Prop

Stakeholders and their needs + Value Prop

 
notion image
 
Delegates: Have more tokens delegated to them, and vote those so they get the delegate payments
  • wants more tokens delegated hence they build their reputation for good choices but making good choices on all the proposals is too hard.
  • To get paid hence they give feedback to proposals but they’re time poor and spread thin
    • To know they’re doing a good job, but they encounter the pain of highly ambiguous results
 
Personas
  • Responsible governor - krystof from l2beat, AVE in scroll, want to be diligent, want good outcomes. Won’t propose (often not allowed because of regulations), but will be devil’s advocate. Often represent large holders, or are very senior (less time on their hands)
    • Often will talk backchannel
    • Will vote late and have a big impact
    • Getting frustrated with Service Providers
  • Service Provider - delegate and also doing work. Will work on a proposal that benefits them. They want more influence with the other delegates, so they get more proposals passed
    • wants the small thing that they can tackle successfully
  • Bureaucrat farmer - just wants to get paid
  • Activist Delegate - low power, but trying to prove themselves. Seen as a career opportunity (building reputation). More time on their hands and more motivated. Alex Lumley, JuanRah. Maybe DonPepe.
    • Only ones that don’t have a short term conflict of interest
    • Doing far more work than they are paid for
    • Not trusted because they can’t tell if they are a grifter, or a random guy. Why are they doing this work without getting paid.
    • Sense that this work will open opportunities for them (but they are often more
 
  • Investors (usually don’t vote)
    • time poor
    • regulations about voting and being involved (VCs who can’t operate)
 
Foundation Operators want DAO to run smoothly:
  • Retain high quality delegates — hence they try to dynamically reward delegates based on a contribution criteria, but they encounter the PAIN of legitimacy, time effectiveness, credible neutrality, and effectiveness of the awards (which manifests as endless discussions and paralysis or putting one’s neck on the line)
  • Ensure no one group captures the DAO,
  • Ensure the DAO doesn’t makes bad choices
  • Retain their governance position, so they try to demonstrate the impact their proposals have had on token price, but they encounter the PAIN of attribution being quite hard (and markets volatile and lion-share of price action driven by external factors)
  • Relies on the activist delegate for things to work (the only ones who will put in the work and don’t have another goal)
 
The pain point:
  • there is a lack of the kind of person
Investors: apathetic
  • need 1 (JTBD format)
  • need 2
  • need 3
 
Our target
  • sell the idea: foundation people + responsible governor
  • and then bureaucrat farmer needs to tag along
 
How is the DAO world changing?
high level gov (board of directors level): constitution, protocol upgrades, allocaitng BIG amounts
Operational gov (executive departments): running and overseeing programs, managing service providers, etc.
 
Value Proposition
 
Scroll folks - what are they excited about, what their thoughts are. Where they imagine the product going.
 
Examples
 
Xavier @XG1717
Chris Dike @chrisdike
Juan @juansit0x 0xChuche @Chuche0x Varit @v3dao Jordan Karstadt @DonOfDAOs
Jenga @jengajojo
Kerem Talha Oral @keremtalhaoral Jun @juanbugsun
Cole @cole404 Rika @RikaGoldberg DrNick @DrNickA Mexi @mexiweb3 Dani @Danimimm
Carl @ccerv1 LifeofDan_EL @LifeofDan_EL Lau
@LauNaMu
Gen @twinFin22
 
 
Workshop with folks in Scroll
  • Who are they?
    • Eugene - has made and participated in them, but he’s mostly the head of governance (operations)
    • Jamila - Eugene’s assistant, more in the trenches with the delegates
  • Objective - Reimagining Negation Game
    • Connor - I’m not sure I’m solving the right thing. So we instigated this conversation
  • Pre-work - sense check the users goals
    • Daniels list
  • Elicitation
    • What do you like about Negation Game? Why do you use it?
    • Who are 3 people who are rigorous? 3 who aren’t? How can you tell? - How does the 1-off algorithm work?
    • What isn’t working?
  • Our goal with Negation Game
  • Reaction - to the tasks we think there is?
    • We think this is the tasks
        • Then, the 4 jobs groups need to do together (not necessarily everyone at every stage) are:
      • problem definition,
      • brainstorming solutions,
      • debating (pros/cons), can lead to new solutions,
        • how are we actually reducing the barriers?
        • Making it more visible
      • deciding (picking a solution),
        • and rewards need to be calculated and distributed (as 5th and 6th jobs)
    • How to make sure the reaction is accurate, not too deep
    • What are the most divisive debates?
 
Connor’s goals
  • Alternative governance
  • Soften their stances
  • Built for DAOs to see them using it
  • Increase the standards of rigor
  • In practice, (maybe for feature reasons or for incentives) it’s not getting us to the problem
    • Not increasing the standard rigor
    • Not reducing the barrier to rigor
    • Make difference in rigor visible
  • Maybe we should let people add “new solutions” to the game - being added in next release
  • Evaluating overlap between delegates - letting people generate solutions
🔍
RnDAO workspace
/
🧽
Network Goods Institute
/
đź“ť
Product Documents
/
Stakeholders and their needs + Value Prop

Stakeholders and their needs + Value Prop

 
notion image
 
Delegates: Have more tokens delegated to them, and vote those so they get the delegate payments
  • wants more tokens delegated hence they build their reputation for good choices but making good choices on all the proposals is too hard.
  • To get paid hence they give feedback to proposals but they’re time poor and spread thin
    • To know they’re doing a good job, but they encounter the pain of highly ambiguous results
 
Personas
  • Responsible governor - krystof from l2beat, AVE in scroll, want to be diligent, want good outcomes. Won’t propose (often not allowed because of regulations), but will be devil’s advocate. Often represent large holders, or are very senior (less time on their hands)
    • Often will talk backchannel
    • Will vote late and have a big impact
    • Getting frustrated with Service Providers
  • Service Provider - delegate and also doing work. Will work on a proposal that benefits them. They want more influence with the other delegates, so they get more proposals passed
    • wants the small thing that they can tackle successfully
  • Bureaucrat farmer - just wants to get paid
  • Activist Delegate - low power, but trying to prove themselves. Seen as a career opportunity (building reputation). More time on their hands and more motivated. Alex Lumley, JuanRah. Maybe DonPepe.
    • Only ones that don’t have a short term conflict of interest
    • Doing far more work than they are paid for
    • Not trusted because they can’t tell if they are a grifter, or a random guy. Why are they doing this work without getting paid.
    • Sense that this work will open opportunities for them (but they are often more
 
  • Investors (usually don’t vote)
    • time poor
    • regulations about voting and being involved (VCs who can’t operate)
 
Foundation Operators want DAO to run smoothly:
  • Retain high quality delegates — hence they try to dynamically reward delegates based on a contribution criteria, but they encounter the PAIN of legitimacy, time effectiveness, credible neutrality, and effectiveness of the awards (which manifests as endless discussions and paralysis or putting one’s neck on the line)
  • Ensure no one group captures the DAO,
  • Ensure the DAO doesn’t makes bad choices
  • Retain their governance position, so they try to demonstrate the impact their proposals have had on token price, but they encounter the PAIN of attribution being quite hard (and markets volatile and lion-share of price action driven by external factors)
  • Relies on the activist delegate for things to work (the only ones who will put in the work and don’t have another goal)
 
The pain point:
  • there is a lack of the kind of person
Investors: apathetic
  • need 1 (JTBD format)
  • need 2
  • need 3
 
Our target
  • sell the idea: foundation people + responsible governor
  • and then bureaucrat farmer needs to tag along
 
How is the DAO world changing?
high level gov (board of directors level): constitution, protocol upgrades, allocaitng BIG amounts
Operational gov (executive departments): running and overseeing programs, managing service providers, etc.
 
Value Proposition
 
Scroll folks - what are they excited about, what their thoughts are. Where they imagine the product going.
 
Examples
 
Xavier @XG1717
Chris Dike @chrisdike
Juan @juansit0x 0xChuche @Chuche0x Varit @v3dao Jordan Karstadt @DonOfDAOs
Jenga @jengajojo
Kerem Talha Oral @keremtalhaoral Jun @juanbugsun
Cole @cole404 Rika @RikaGoldberg DrNick @DrNickA Mexi @mexiweb3 Dani @Danimimm
Carl @ccerv1 LifeofDan_EL @LifeofDan_EL Lau
@LauNaMu
Gen @twinFin22
 
 
Workshop with folks in Scroll
  • Who are they?
    • Eugene - has made and participated in them, but he’s mostly the head of governance (operations)
    • Jamila - Eugene’s assistant, more in the trenches with the delegates
  • Objective - Reimagining Negation Game
    • Connor - I’m not sure I’m solving the right thing. So we instigated this conversation
  • Pre-work - sense check the users goals
    • Daniels list
  • Elicitation
    • What do you like about Negation Game? Why do you use it?
    • Who are 3 people who are rigorous? 3 who aren’t? How can you tell? - How does the 1-off algorithm work?
    • What isn’t working?
  • Our goal with Negation Game
  • Reaction - to the tasks we think there is?
    • We think this is the tasks
        • Then, the 4 jobs groups need to do together (not necessarily everyone at every stage) are:
      • problem definition,
      • brainstorming solutions,
      • debating (pros/cons), can lead to new solutions,
        • how are we actually reducing the barriers?
        • Making it more visible
      • deciding (picking a solution),
        • and rewards need to be calculated and distributed (as 5th and 6th jobs)
    • How to make sure the reaction is accurate, not too deep
    • What are the most divisive debates?
 
Connor’s goals
  • Alternative governance
  • Soften their stances
  • Built for DAOs to see them using it
  • Increase the standards of rigor
  • In practice, (maybe for feature reasons or for incentives) it’s not getting us to the problem
    • Not increasing the standard rigor
    • Not reducing the barrier to rigor
    • Make difference in rigor visible
  • Maybe we should let people add “new solutions” to the game - being added in next release
  • Evaluating overlap between delegates - letting people generate solutions