Thank you guys for responding with your thoughts and concerns about the members. I would like to clarify for the community that all meetings will be open to all people; all discussions will be recorded; and any proposals from the committee will be put forward to a DAO vote. In the proposal, I have outlined that the committee membership will be reviewed within 6 months as I imagine some people will attend these meetings and like a more formal role, while some of the initial members may no longer have the time to contribute. I have been recruiting for this committee for months in this forum, on the discord, on community calls, on hangouts, and even on a podcast. If anyone is interested in participating, please do so! We want as much feedback as possible from the committee to put forward the best proposal.
The funds could definitely be put to excellent use given the previous insights community members in this post and others have provided. That being said, I agree with the above opinions that there must be a vetting process and it sounds like you have put something like this together over the past few months
I would love to participate in Treasury Governance, albeit in no official role at this point. I’ll be showing up to these meetings and I am happy there is an “open door” policy in that regard.
There have been a few additional people demonstrate interest as this proposal has gained traction (and is so close to passing!). How do you all think the community would react to adding a few names to the committee before submitting the core prop?
I was just looking at the proposed list of core members and the ones I recognize could all present valuable insights. I think it would come down to simply proposing that those additional members be added to the committee before the core prop is posted. It just needs to be put out there (Discord, Here in the chat) so people know, and get the unofficial nod from the community. I feel like there would be little opposition to whoever you have in mind.
However, I think there has been some animosity towards a lack of clarity/ information asymmetry recently, so adding members without putting it out there first may be met with opposition only because something was changed and people weren’t informed beforehand.
Everyone’s input is welcome and I’m glad you’re interested fren! I think there may have been a misconception initially that this task force was somehow exclusive to input only from names on the DTF voted list but that’s simply not the case. In my opinion, at this point, the TF is a primarily a verbal commitment by a number of Community members to openly initiate discussion and draft proposals that it believes would best represent and benefit the Aavegotchi community through Treasury initiatives. There is absolutely no doubt that there are way more than 8 members that have a strong commitment to the game both emotionally and financially. Anyone with commitment to the game and an interest in Treasury functions is welcome and encouraged to participate in DTF discussions. The entire community will still need to vote for anything to move forward. After some public discussions, we’ll attempt to shape that collective voice into a proposal, or perhaps even take some surveys to gather information on what the community is leaning toward.
I definitely don’t have an issue with adding names and would just reiterate that all are welcome to participate in DTTF discussions. It does bring up the good point that if we are attempting to make this more formal with a list of dedicated names(responsibilities being the final say on SigProp drafts that represent the DTTF) how do we approach this process and how often? I think the primary reason that we even have names associated with the DTF is that there will hopefully be some amount of trust associated with proposals originating from the TF. My interest is primarily in Defi and treasury functions so I’m definitely open to ideas on how best to implement the bringing on and retiring of names from this list. Quite frankly, I’m a bit indifferent to my name even being on the list, as I would enoying participating in these discussions all the same.