We are really glad, that Osmosis Community supports so many different initiatives to develop Osmosis on all levels
Of course, the Osmosis Community must be confident that funds from the Community Pool are spent for their intended purpose
We believe that any proposal to allocate funds from the Community Pool must first be audited
Any proposal to spend funds from the community pool without audit - should not be put to a vote
The description of any proposal to spend funds from the community pool must include information about how and when the proposal was audited
To ensure that the community has no doubts about the use of funds from the Community Pool, we need to conduct an independent audit of the spending and use of funds from the Community Pool
To conduct an independent audit from the community, we decided to create the OCA SubDAO - Osmosis Community Audit
The OCA will include active Osmosis community members, validator representatives, as well as representatives of other SubDAOs that are not related to the spending of funds from the Community Pool
The main tasks of the OCA will be:
Audit of proposals about Community Pool spending, and creating a review of such proposals in a form understandable and accessible to any community member
Monitoring the process of spending funds from the Community Pool, as well as checking spending reports submitted by such SubDAOs as OSL or UGP
Informing the community about any difference between stated goals and actual spending of funds
This solution is based on Game Theory, and corresponds to the latest achievements in the fields of economics and management
For the sake of everyone’s benefit and transparency, and in order to prevent the use of funds from the community pool to the detriment of the community, we need to have not only “agents”, but also “counter-agents”
Only under such conditions will we be able to achieve harmonious and progressive development of Osmosis
To get acquainted with the latest achievements of Game Theory, we invite you to view the educational course:
If you are interested in independent community auditing, welcome to our chat to develop a transparent and effective audit process:
I agree that there should be a cost/benefit analysis on each community spend, but this is pretty much fulfilled in a more decentralized way by Crypto Twitter and the access to this forum itself for feedback.
The shared chat is just the same self-promoting chat that you’ve had for years after you were told that you couldn’t post everything you post on Twitter in the main Osmosis Telegram.
We have seen that recent spending proposals not always get as much attention in preparation as desired. Some of them pass way to easy, especially regarding some of the request sizes we see on chain. For that purpose to take a critical look a subDAO would be really good.
How do we want to enforce this? We even have said that we need forum threads and approved that in governance. However, we have seen examples where still props without forum discussion pass (not much luckily, but validators are validators and they cut corners as well)
As I see it, this would require some kind of selection for a specific spending request to act as auditers and counter-auditers. How can we safely select people and how do we get enough people to choose from in the first place?
I do agree with @JohnnyWyles that in general the community should step up on this subject. People have to act with the funds from the CP like it were their own funds and whether they would spend it if it came directly from their own pockets. Maybe this would only need to be an in-between step to learn the community that they hold more power than they think?
So, I totally sure, that we need to make a discussion about Osmosis Community Audit here
After we will have all the important links for the community
Telegram group is needed just to get a fast connection between people who wants to participate
Now, we are on the stage of preparing of “official part”
We need to write the main document, collect first group of people who are responsible, have a good reputation, collect their addresses? create multisig wallet, create DAODAO, create Twitter, after create proposal to run OCA SubDAO, after get approve of Community, that all people who want to get allocation from Communiyt Pool, need to cooperate with OCA DAO in questions of transparency, and after it, OCA SubDAO need to start to check community pool spendings, and inform the community about it
Also, we need not only forum thread, but also we need our own channel at Discord, also roles for OCA SubDAO members at Discord, and I’m not sure that we need own Telegram chat, just members of OCA SubDAO need to join Osmosis chats of groups that got funds allocation from Community Pool, to communicate with people and be able to audit spendings
Hey so I have no issue helping as a neutral party here in whatever way I can. I like the idea and am curious to see where it can go and what it can do for the ecosystem.
That being said, it might be best if I just remain as neutral as possible here for a few reasons… one being that I am part of a group (OSL) which is likely to be the focus of some level of audit (not a problem, please ask us things!), and the other (larger) reason being I am not exactly a quiet person when it comes to my personal views on many aspects of this platform/community and the surrounding, larger ecosystem.
There aren’t a lot of cases where it would be difficult to call me out for being biased in some way, and I do not wish to burden the DAO with that. However, I will not turn down any reasonable request by any party for information, verification or a dummy-check on anything you may come across or that is unclear or difficult to find.
I think he means the auditors should have access to the comms of other groups such as OSL, OGP, Skip etc.
This is pretty much impossible to enforce and seems like it would only create animosity, so I can’t see this happening.
Clear guidelines for detailed budget upon request and reporting requirements thereafter is probably the best route. That is fairly standard for use of public funds and is verifiable by anyone.
I think other web 2 tools like google workspace for something like IBCX where several communities coordinate and organize together to build strategies would be helpful.
It would be more organized and transparent for the overall cosmos vision. And that’s not to say that chains and communities that are not aligned couldn’t create their own workspaces to coordinate with chains and groups they are either.
I find the fractalization of communities to be a bit redundant in communication and the concerns similar.
It wouldn’t hurt. Speaking of specifically creating a formal DAO - legally organized to function as a business, but not sure how the treasuries and current communities would align - maybe a representative from each community joins as an IBCX representative???
IBC could theoretically have a pretty expansive DAO reach with all the platforms it’s being implemented.
Wait, now you are losing me. Where does IBCX come from?
And since we are Osmosis oriented, we don’t need representatives from other chains I guess? Since it involves Osmosis?
Regarding whether it would hurt; I have experienced that formalizing is good, but it doesn’t need a DAO for it, since it will simply not add any value. Why would we operate as a business? There will be no funding involved?
In terms of Lean this feels very much like overdesigning as solution while we have the forum and more already in place.
We’re approaching the value add with totally different frames of mind. I’m one who thinks validators should be regulated through policy…just like traditional businesses that transmit money are regulated by policy.
I lean towards business professionalism. Other suggestions I’ve made, like a way to implement ISO-20022 standardizations in cosmos apps are to elevate the professionalism of the ecosystem. There are some other suggestions I’ve made about investments in analogue business using automated tech solutions where my mind is focused.
In those business there would be capital requirements to get the businesses started, but they should be self-sustaining in a short amount of time and then provide buy pressure on the coin as a stipulation of the initial funding.
IBCX seems like a more natural way to accomplish that because it provides some flexibility as to what services any one person could pitch to prospective customers.
I don’t agree with that.
Even going and getting links to information that I’ve posted in comms channels to support what I am saying is repetitive and a waste of time. If you feel like this is effective way to communicate and grow an ecosystem I disagree with that mentality as well.
Wow, this is just passive aggresive… Thanks for sharing the links of the Cosmos Hub forum, but you can’t seriously expect that everyone has read every post on every forum and knows what you mean. People won’t have a life anymore if they are expected to read every possible post. Can it simply be that people haven’t seen your posts on the Cosmos forum? That simple conclusion would mean quite the difference for your tone about “being repetitive and wasting time”.
Anyways, I think you should create a separate thread for your wishes and ideas, since they are a different topic. This thread was started by @POSTHUMAN to create an Audit subDAO to assess funding requests, regardless of the content.
Your ideas concern the content of those requests, which are not the topic of the initial post. So please return the discussion back to the format of assessing requests and not discussing what kind of content could be in those requests.
And to be back on that subject; no, I seriously doubt whether we should have a DAO for it (especially since DAOs are illegal according to current legal frameworks, so if you want to bring it to a higher standard and comply with laws and regulations, then DAOs are not the way to go… but I guess you already knew that). In my opinion if we manage to get the forum more alive with good discussions on the (right) content, we don’t need to overcomplicate things with a DAO.
I’m not saying it to be passive aggressive. Searching for or sharing links across several comms channels to communicate a consistent message to multiple communities is a waste of time in principle for anyone. If your one who is efficient with time management - you wouldn’t expect this for yourself or anyone else - hence why having an IBCX oriented DAO and community representatives across different IBCX chains is the most logical way to consolidate that kind of effort.
DAO’s are formal legally represented entitles in several jurisdictions - including the United States.
Content ≠ conducting business across multiple sectors taking in income that taxes will have to be paid on with paid employees with the goal to provide benefits too also.
I think a subdao auditing this kind of propostion is in the scope of the inital thread, but it is deserving of it’s own thread - I do agree.