Proposal: Onboard Fire Eyes DAO as Strategic Partner

[Coopahtroopa]

Continuing my thoughts to address sentiment on this discussion.

Please expect a separate response with an updated structure to address specification around token amount, vesting and governance.

First off, thank you @delitzer for the kind words of support. I would like to highlight one bit in particular.

@delitzer

The opportunity cost for talented individuals in this industry has never been higher. We should be sending a message that the coffers are open to those who can deliver, not that we will nickel and dime those who put forth thoughtful proposals backed by their track records.

While coming from a place of good intent, the responses from @Andrea81 and @iyvy signal that because we are requesting to be compensated, our values and motives are not aligned.

As a group that has invested 100+ hours into this community, this feedback is very discouraging and does not set a good precedent for others to get involved. The harsh reality is that there are less than 100 people in the world capable of doing decentralized governance on a meaningful level, and every single one of those individuals has a dozen plus offers on where to spend their time.

Fire Eyes has very intentionally taken the time to make a proposal to this community, namely due to our strong belief in the Balancer team and the long-term sustainability of the project.

@Andrea81

I would encourage you and the rest of the FED team to look at a long time frame by making a robust and consistent contribution.

This proposal is our intent to continue this conversation as someone who’s played a key role in Balancer over the past year. While we look to better define KPIs, I’d ask that this proposal come with a degree of trust that our reputation and signal is stronger than any metrics to be measured.

In short, this proposal should be seen as a Yes or No vote that Balancer would like Fire Eyes to be a governance leader for a minimum of 6 months, and the expectation of it being much longer.

Governance Compensation

@Fernando

If we become too restrictive and complicated with grants for community members that are dedicating an important/valuable amount of their time to Balancer, then I’m sure less and less proposals will come and we might die a slow death as a protocol that can’t attract enough community engagement

This thread has embodied this concern. I understand what Fire Eyes is asking for is substantial, but the general sentiment from our team is that the Balancer community is not receptive of our contributions and that our talents should be taken elsewhere.

I am here to vocalize and address this feeling, and reach a clear understanding on whether or not the Balancer community wishes for us to pursue this engagement.

Examples of this pushback are quoted below.

@iyvy

I do not think that FE DAO has demonstrated their value add is worth more than the 6666 BAL they are asking for.

@Andrea81

I am perplexed about the amount of BAL requested and about the proposal to work for an unclear time as a partner and politician but for only 6 months as a “facilitator” of services.

@iyvy

It is unclear to me how paying for governance is not a complete meme. I’m very distrustful of the efficacy and motives of (Fire Eyes).

These concerns are in direct contrast to @Fernando @delitzer and @marta - three key players with substantial stakes in the project. Examples of support defined below.

@Fernando

I have been extremely satisfied with the fire Eyes crew in these first two projects.

@marta

The help they provided, guidance and some of the community management was really valuable

@delitzer

I think $100K for 6 months of the proposed contributions from a team of this caliber–let alone one that has already delivered so much for the Balancer community–is an absolute steal

While I’m thankful for this support, I see conflicting sentiment from the core team and investors, and the day to day community contributors.

To this - I would echo @marta’s suggestion for a Governance Advisory Board - essentially acting as a middle ground between the core team and the day to day community.

This would be included in the scope on top of the originally proposed proposal, and allow us to work directly with the community to better set precedent for how others can get involved in a more fluid manner.

To recap, next steps are as follows:

• Clarifying sentiment around whether the community wishes to engage Fire Eyes (poll below).
• Establishing clear guidelines and precedent around vesting and commitment to Balancer.

Please expect a follow up response to address the specifics of a proposal that would be put to a Snapshot vote, only if the following poll passes with majority.

• Yes - Engage Fire Eyes as a Strategic Partner
• No - Do not engage Fire Eyes.

Thank you for your time and responses!