However, if thereās one thing that DAOs are good for, is exploring multiple parallel routes. This is possible by having different guilds (some of them more open, some full-time, etc.). All guilds are focused on the OKRs, but each guild has its own scope. Within that scope, the guild should be laser-focused .
I can agree with that.
I believe that even if we wanted to have everyone in this proposal work in the Court right now, it would be useless. Why? Because I believe that Nation3 Court doesnāt need 7 people working on it part-time right now. What it needs is 3 people working on it full-time, with some others contributing in the sidelines.
I wasnāt aware those members the N3BI research team wouldnāt be useful in helping out the court system. This new context helps understand the reasoning better.
This proposal will lead to an active citizens metric, which we donāt have now, therefore making it impossible to meet this quarterās OKRs.
A correctly balanced activity metric might be extremely difficult to achieve. What is the goal of citizen activity metric? To solve for voter apathy?
Research around NationCred and measuring active citizens might take us to some Sybil-resistance, privacy-preserving way of introducing 1-person 1-vote. This can be a powerful tool to introduce more checks and balances. Checks and balances are what gives Nation3 Court legitimacy.
To specify, I think they would be extremely useful if they were not even more useful in what they are doing now. Said otherwise, having contributors keeping the citizen app afloat, research UBI and other endeavors helps keep the contributors working on the Court full-time more focused.
One of my main concern for UBI was sustainability and scalability, which was slightly addressed in this post.
We can also consider building āpublicā revenue generating digital infrastructures by Nation3 to go to the UBI treasury.
@zhaojiayi.eth I made the above comment a while ago when I was new to Nation3 and also the concept of UBI. I have since realized that this comment/suggestion is not a sustainable way to fund a UBI program.
That aside, to your current question, Nation3 core contributors have been focused on building Nation3 Court and research into N3BI, so to the best of my knowledge there are no priorities on other public services till the launch of at least the Court.
You can sign up for Nation3 court launch phase whitelist on the jurisdiction page on our new website.
Feel free to also leave suggestions on some of the public services you expect from Nation3, preferably in a new post outside of this if you donāt mind.
Most of the work went into researching and developing a Sybil protection mechanismāNationCred.
A natural next priority for development work would be to focus on the Citizen Directory, because that is the UI that Nation3 citizens will be using for activating their SourceCred identities. Initially we signed up people manually for SourceCred, but that is no longer a scalable solution, and we can use the Citizen Directory + smart contracts for automating this step.
They were using 1-person 1-vote ādemocracy,ā so if we want to eventually introduce a similar voting strategy for Nation3, we need to be careful.
I personally participated in the UBI + PoH project last year because I found it really interesting, but I had to leave after a few weeks because of the unkind/aggressive community culture (especially their Telegram group). My take on this, after personally observing, is that the immature behavior amongst leaders/admins was the main reason the whole project collapsed.
While on this tangent, I think you and @anastasiya are being excellent role models when it comes to communication styles. It feels so much more pleasant to form part of an organization where the members are kind and respectful with each other, and not constantly criticizing/attacking. It makes an enormous difference
This makes me think that we should have some form of Code of Conduct for Nation3 that makes it crystal clear that abusive/offensive/mean language is not accepted in Nation3, and that you will be banned if you attempt to introduce that kind of culture.
Thank you for the kind words Aahna! I do think some lightweight code of conduct could be beneficial. It could be a law, and whenever/if we token gate the forum (probably after the launch of standard passports), citizens who verbally attack others could get slashed.
That way participation is rewarded (w/ NationCred) but toxic behavior is penalized.
The reason I think the code of conduct should be quite lite is so itās quickly readable. I think a few paragraphs (4-6?) is probably a good amount. Iāve seen communities with massive code of conducts and no one ends up really knowing whatās right and wrong.
The $200 per week were meant to cover daily expenses for contributors dedicating most of their time on this. And since we typically had 4 contributors per week, and a total of 400 $RESEARCH to allocate per week, I used 100 $RESEARCH received as a threshold for someone actively contributing.
Total for all epochs: 3,400 USDC
@luis The multi-sig only holds 2,180 USDC at the moment, so it wouldnāt cover these payouts. How do you suggest we handle the payouts?
I understand this was the initial proposal for Q4 2022, and the amounts you presented are from Oct to Dec, so they do seem to add up. I see no USDC was previously paid out for this proposal, so 3,400 USDC is within budget (as you mentioned before, it indeed ended up being less since there were weeks with inactive contributors).
So if we are sort of $1,220, my proposal would be to ask which contributors would be okay receiving $NATION for that value instead. If not, we could use some of the ETH that 3.nation3.eth was holding from a treasury diversification proposal from back in the day. Both options make sense to me.
Anyway, I thought back in the day of building a dashboard to track liabilities/assets based on governance proposals. Would be useful!