Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
Nounish Prof ⌐◧-◧🎩
@nounishprof
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)
4 replies
6 recasts
25 reactions
Nounish Prof ⌐◧-◧🎩
@nounishprof
Link to draft proposal: https://hackmd.io/W7PD5iNtSbex1NLZTNmogw?view Link to discord discussion: https://discord.com/channels/1039595167910477936/1303093766093013043
2 replies
5 recasts
6 reactions
Nounish Prof ⌐◧-◧🎩
@nounishprof
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)
3 replies
1 recast
8 reactions
links 🏴
@links
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.
2 replies
0 recast
1 reaction
scottrepreneur
@scottrepreneur.eth
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.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
links 🏴
@links
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?
0 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
