BuilderDAO

Builder

If you are a member of a DAO on Nouns.Build we want to get your opinion! A proposal for an escrow approach to paying props using SmartInvoice with a milestone based approach to releasing funds with a prop update. (links to draft prop and more info in replies)

Link to draft proposal: https://hackmd.io/W7PD5iNtSbex1NLZTNmogw?view

Link to discord discussion:

building /gmfarcaster network |
blockchain ENT prof |  ⌐◧-◧ Nouncillor, Nouner, BuilderDAO community resident /builder |

https://www.gmfarcaster.com/ 

Link to draft proposal: https://hackmd.io/W7PD5iNtSbex1NLZTNmogw?view

Link to discord discussion: https://discord.com/channels/1039595167910477936/1303093766093013043

Hyperpunk & techni-optimist. Co-founder, Scout Game.
https://scoutgame.xyz

Noun 730 | based & optimistic Ξthereum Ξnjoyoor | founder: zerorights.media, zeropod.xyz and the /yellow collective

Gami, like ori-gami. Early /nouns contributor and founder /gnars. Flipping fiat with /imf and exploring AI with /noun13. Debt before dishonor

Startup artist seeking inspiration.  Champion of /bcard

Nouns, Lil Nouns, bitNouns ⌐◨-◨ Currently building @artistprogram_ 
 and nouns.world Linktr.ee/mikeg.studio

Here for the memes! ⌐◨-◨           
                                                                                
https://www.fan.io/goyabean-

@basednouns

Freezerverse founder. Multimedia designer. Do you like /icecream ?

pinging a few people -- would love to get your take on this approach and whether or not you think your DAO would use this: @noun839.eth @toadyhawk.eth @skateboard @derekgtaylor @gami @mikegood @links @goyabean- @itsai @0xsatori and feel free to share with others (maxed tagging)

Understand the intent behind this but ultimately don’t think I would use it.

The release mechanism, as far as I understand is multisig or proposal.  In both cases I don’t really see the benefit of escrow - just release funds to multisig or make a new proposal, no escrow needed.

I’m also not a big fan of strict milestone based funding…it doesn’t make a lot of sense for early-stage teams/products.  Often in learning what needs to be done you invalidate milestones and then are incentivized to continue on the path you know to be wrong if the funding method is strict.

Agree this is a huge problem.  To make myself clear: I have tested the solution on your test page and I would probably vote for the proposal.  I just wouldn't use it myself.

Maybe I am not understanding the way this would work, but from what I understand...
1) someone makes a proposal for 10 ETH, broken into 5 2ETH milestones.  The DAO has a multisig set up to approve milestones.
2) the 10 ETH goes into an escrow contract
3) when a milestone is delivered, the multisig approves the release of funds from the escrow contract
4) if the milestones are not delivered by a certain date, the multisig can send the funds back to the treasury

The reason I wouldn't use it is I don't see the added benefit of an escrow contract when the multisig is already responsible for sending funds out.  You could give the multisig the funds and let them determine when to disburse.  Basically it seems like you are reducing the power of the multisig to two options (disburse, return), but shouldn't this group be a trusted group already?

Any thoughts on proposals currently being set up with little to no accountability on the proposer(s)? 

Would be great to shift the onus off the DAO to track down updates and fulfillment. Even one milestone would be helpful to remove the stickiness of a retro proposal. The release delegation is optional and set per DAO. 

/builder has proposals that simply aren't delivering anything described in the proposal.