Dear @HBesso31 & team.
It has been inspiring to see your ideas and engagement with Proof of Humanity and $UBI. Your business related proposals are powerful and important, and clearly you are all extremely talented, committed and motivated. However, as we consider your proposal we also have to keep our feet on the ground. This project is the culmination of many years of work, and we can’t afford to make mistakes with such a precious opportunity.
Right now, Proof of Humanity is heavily subsidized by Kleros. They are generously investing $150,000 usd in order to help the DAO hire a competent team, who has the mandate of taking over the attributions currently being held under the purview of Kleros. This includes hiring a developer, which is an element that we take extremely seriously, as prospective PMs. The complexity entailed in keeping this entire system afloat is enormous. However, your proposal exacerbates the original budget, while allocating only one-sixth of it for a part-time “Technical Strategy Manager”, @baconfuel , and no full-time developer. This is made all the more problematic because not only does @baconfuel lack any experience in solidity (which might or might not be acceptable) but he is also not making a full-time commitment, so could not possibly go through the necessary learning curve in a timely fashion, as this project requires. This arrangement you are proposing will certainly not be enough even for the primary tasks of continuously upgrading the PoH platform, fixing bugs and facilitating integrations. And it will certainly not be enough for additionally implementing the ambitious plans you have outlined.
We certainly celebrate and admire the incredible work you have been doing. Perhaps some of it could be a better fit for the community-governed treasury of the DAO, and we think it’s worthwhile to explore other ways to reward highly engaged community members through incentive systems, as we mention in our proposal. Additionally we want to implement an Ambassadors program which was conceived precisely with people like you in mind, and we highly welcome your contributions to shaping it.
Responding to @Mads and @Nachobr 's suggestion: The two of us are applying as a team. This is not a last minute coalition, put together for the purpose of this application. We have collaborated for 4 years and are deeply aligned in our vision and strategy for the year ahead. This vision was built over those 4 years, it was carefully developed and clearly laid out.
Currently our number 1 priority is to search for a dev, and we are being helped by many members of the community as well as Kevin Owocki, who is in one of the best positions within the Ethereum ecosystem to help us find the right person. We already drove one application in and have a few others lined up — all coming from professionals that are aligned with our salary philosophy, committing to the 50k usd / year budget. We have explained in our original post in this thread why we think equal salaries would ultimately be better for the Proof of Humanity DAO, as they represent a values system that we consider important to imbue this project with. That said, we will gladly re-adjust our budget if we fail to find someone competent for the position. Our emphasis on competence is why we are asking prospective candidates to apply separately under the developer opening, so they can be evaluated individually by the Kleros team. We take Kleros’ input very seriously, as anyone applying to this position should.
Your suggestions come out of a sense of urgency that we can empathize with. We haven’t been officially interviewed yet, and would also appreciate it if the process was moving forward a bit faster because there’s certainly lots of work to be done. Yet, we agree with @clesaege that those who take these first job openings at the DAO are in a position analogous to being a founder. It’s an enormous responsibility and therefore it’s not something that should be decided in a rush or through haphazard arrangements.
Concerning our strategy and what is being claimed to be a “weakness”—our supposed lack of business skills—we consider this critique to be a profoundly misguided, if not naive, assessment. This reminds us of this great interview with Vitalik Buterin by Laura Shin, which we recommend watching. The point of it is, crypto networks are different from traditional tech start-ups and require fundamentally different strategies. Unlike a corporation, which can’t be copy-pasted, anyone can fork a blockchain protocol. This means that legitimacy is crucial, so focusing on building a thriving community with participatory and vibrant governance is a foundational element of a “business strategy” for a protocol. Our community is already creating incredible initiatives at a fast rate and a key component of our plans is to support these individuals in continuing to do so with a variety of tools and comprehensive information. We also understand that sustaining the value of $UBI is critical to the project achieving its ambitious goals, and will actively work to support initiatives in this direction, such as the yearn vault that was recently created. Yet, we understand that trying to centrally develop every single idea, even if allowing for community input as was laid out in @HBesso31 and his team’s strategy, is not only unrealistic but also incompatible with the open source ethos that this project is built upon. Instead, our focus is to work on the fundamentals, while enabling and strengthening the community so we can facilitate the emergence of a thriving and entrepreneurial ecosystem.
Furthermore, as one of us has done extensive research in the field of Proof of Personhood protocols, we are keenly aware of the challenges ahead, particularly with regards to the security of the registry. It would be unfortunate for this DAO to hire leadership which does not fully grasp the importance of this element. This is why we have proposed to build an open channel and research seminar to connect all the existing initiatives working on Sybil-resistant identity—which is another community-building effort that will allow us to be stronger and more resilient to attacks when they come (they will come).
Finally, we want to clarify that the decision to not join an external team is by no means a question of competition over collaboration. We simply must think of what is feasible and realistic for Proof of Humanity right now. Our collaborative ethos is clear to everyone who has known and worked with us throughout the years, and is apparent when even a supposedly competing project supports our candidacy. They do this because they know our deep commitment to the success of Proof of Humanity is not rooted in a zero-sum mentality. We are open to discussing ideas for collaboration that reflect an awareness and careful analysis of the current needs and constraints of Proof of Humanity. We care about this project and are here because we want to be of service to this community. If a more compelling application comes up, we will gladly support it.
Our very best,
Paula & @SofiaCossar