Thank you for this post. I am supportive of the initiative and will join the Governance Working Group. I specifically like that the framework you propose appears to balance quite well community control with flexibility on execution, so I think that it’s a good start.
Some random thoughts below:
-
Concerning the committee members that will be overseeing grants, do you imagine that as a paid role by the treasury? or no? If yes, then I can imagine that a lot more folks from the community might be interested in being considered for the role, so I think that it’s important that the community reaches consensus about that point before members are selected. Any best practices you saw there in other communities that you could share?
-
Concerning grants, I feel that a big part of the work that we would have to do as a community will be to provide principles / guidelines that any potential solutions need to satisfy. For instance see section “Designing by principles” on our previous post https://radicle.xyz/blog/towards-decentralized-code-collaboration.html I am not concerned by it, I am just calling it out as something that we collectively need to spend more time on, as Radicle gets its value & differentiation from some of those principles.
-
Concerning growth initiatives I have a number of ideas:
- in order to drive adoption of Radicle Orgs, the treasury could potentially subsidize the cost of creating an org today (you get your money back for org creation + first checkpoint)
- when Radicle Funding launches later this year, potentially the treasury could provide matching in RAD or USDC for projects that are being funded through Radicle
- finally I really think that we need to start the conversation around incentivization of seed node providers. It’s a very complex topic, but I am curious if there are community members that would like to take it on and propose something more concrete. Conversations have been popping up left and right but there hasn’t been much progress.
Thanks again for starting the conversation!