Ecosystem Growth Fund - retrospective

[abbey]

Hey @nas! Thank you for taking the time to put together this retrospective.

I wanted to share a couple of comments & questions before we decide on next steps.

@nas

Developer education contributors

It seems like Dev Rel education initiatives & contributors were the most expensive line item on the EGF’s budget. I’m able to find a comprehensive overview of what work was proposed & scoped, but am having trouble finding the output/deliverables from the Dev Rel contributions. Could you provide a more detailed overview or point me to any documentation outlining the contributions?

@nas

Onboarding builders - We funded the development of a cohort programme with the aim of building a more supportive path for builders who want to build in our ecosystem. The strategy around this took longer to develop than expected due to changes in the strategy of core team, but we now believe it’s well focused and will be a key pillar of how we move forward in our ecosystem growth efforts.

Regarding the cohort programme, where could one find more documentation? If it will be an important piece of how ecosystem growth efforts are coordinated moving forward, it would be great to see more detail on what was developed over the last 6 months. After searching, I am able to find the information outlined in Radicle Cohort Programmes - #4 by RuthD post but am having trouble finding information on what work was done after that.

@nas

Strategy alignment - It’s been hard work keeping the initiatives connected and aligned with the core development teams as changes to core strategy were implemented. If an initiative needs a high degree of strategic alignment then they should be coordinating closely within a single org. If an initiative is able to progress the ecosystem mission without needing a high degree of strategy alignment it can be funded and operate as an independent org.

It’s definitely tough to navigate growth strategy within a project that is early on its path to “product-market fit”. What suggestions do you have for the emerging Core Development Org on how strategy shifts/changes can be better communicated across the DAO?

@nas

etting - Contributors had a higher failure rate than core team hires due to the desire to allow community members to make a proposal for work they want to do over hiring for a narrow role with proven experience. We believe that teams focused on one growth area would be better at vetting contributors and initiatives as well.

Can you say more on this? In your perspective, how will focusing teams on one growth area increase the quality of vetting?

@nas

The areas that we found to be most interesting, challenging, and impactful in the EGF were the education focused initiatives.

Can you say more on why you believe education-focused initiatives are the most impactful?

@nas

Transitioning

1. We are exploring two options for transitioning the treasury
2. We return all funds to the treasury.
3. We roll the funds over into the proposal for the next phase of our work on ecosystem growth focused on knowledge sharing and education. Current committee would be removed as signers and replaced with new core team.

As for the transition plan, I think the best path forward is to return all funds to the Treasury. While rolling over the funds is acceptable in the cases of minimal changes to structure & mandate (e.g. Grants v1 → v2), it seems like there will be substantial changes to direction of the initiative. Therefore, returning the funds and starting fresh with a fresh proposal that outlines the new mandate, scope, and strategy seems like a more appropriate next step for the EGF.

Looking forward to discussing your replies!