S.W.A.T Initiative Discussion

[brianchilders]

@chak

Thank you for helping to stimulate this topic / thread of conversation further - you have some great thoughts / questions that I aim to explore / respond in detail.

@chak

1. Do we want The Bureau and SWAT teams to be mutually exclusive? There could be a conflict of interest if a member is participating in both, but diversity on either side would help mitigate the risk of gaming the system.

I agree - it would be good to have diversity in both areas. The question is how are the approvals of the work done? If we explore this area (there are multiple approaches to solve this problem and I can propose one for consideration), we may find ways to help avoid gaming the system.

@chak

2. Much like the SWAT members, The Bureau will be inadvertently contributing to SWISE through their responsibilities. Should we consider an allocation of SWISE to members of The Bureau to ensure their important role is met with compensation?

Let’s pull in some of the concepts that @kiriyha discussed and perhaps try to refine some of the processes within the high-level implementations that were proposed:

The StakeWise Acceleration Taskforce (S.W.A.T.) Initiative

As was originally discussed in Community Call #2, there is a lot of untapped potential in how we coordinate as a DAO to achieve objectives like Total Value Locked (TVL) and community growth. This proposal seeks to address said opportunity with a structured program called the S.W.A.T. Let’s dive straight in! Motivation The StakeWise Acceleration Taskforce, or S.W.A.T. in short, is an initiative designed to coordinate informational campaigns around StakeWise and incentivize community…

Specifically:

@kiriyha

1. Execute a recurring DAO vote to allocate SWISE rewards to the Merkle Distributor, where registered SWAT participants would be claiming their SWISE according to SWISE earned in the previous weeks. The ability to claim SWISE earned will be for up to one year after which the forfeited SWISE will be returned back to the Treasury.
2. The Bureau must report to the DAO on the progress with certain frequency and implement changes to the program according to the results

So if we were to maybe sketch out a process for the high-level thoughts in term of what’s called an assignment or work item:

1. Ideas
   Someone comes up with an idea that may be suitable for an assignment. The idea can come from anyone: DAO, Community, Bureau, Outsider, Core Dev Team, Investor and so on. The idea would be ultimately processed by the Bureau (after consulting appropriate individuals to determine feasibility of the idea) and will be dispositioned appropriately. Potentially a TypeForm could be set up for Idea Submission. The idea would be either accepted for an assignment, or rejected.
2. Assignment
   When an idea is turned into an assignment, there will be characteristics of the assignment that are defined. Some characteristics of the Assignment might be:

• expected delivery date of the assignment
• suggested SWISE rewards for the SWAT Member
• suggested SWISE staking requirement by a Bureau Member (more detail on this later)
• required skills to complete the assignment, summary of the requirements / deliverables that would qualify the task the task to be marked as complete
• and so on…
  The assignment would then be posted on a “SWAT Board”, and a SWAT member can work on the task. One thing to note: an assignment is not “exclusively owned” by a SWAT member. As we have an open market for assets, we could have an open market for work. Not every task will be suited for all SWAT members. We have people in the community that have varying skill sets and we should leverage each of their specialized skillsets. For example, a SWAT member that is strong in talent acquisition should not be expected to be strong in Solidity programming. A person with a strong skillset in Solidity programming should not expected to have the skills necessary to be a graphic artists / logo design / meme generation.

3. Completed Work
   Once the assignment is completed by the SWAT Member (multiple members may compete against each other for the same task), the submitted work is reviewed by The Bureau for accuracy and completeness of the task. Additionally, if multiple people submitted work for the same task, The Bureau can opt to [1] decide who the “winner” is for the task and/or as appropriate [2] note multiple SWAT members qualified to earn the rewards (e.g. if another individual’s work is found to complement other submitted work for the same assignment). The caveat here is that if a person is in a SWAT member capacity submitting the work, they must recuse themselves from two steps [1] The Bureau evaluation process for submitted tasks and [2] the DAO voting process. I recognize that a person could have multiple addresses and attempt to game the system - but at this time, I don’t think anyone has a “super majority” at this time - but hopefully The Bureau members and the DAO being “two filters” - would help eliminate the potential of gaming the system.
4. Submit work for approval by the DAO
   Now here’s where it could get interesting. I didn’t say that this could be a requirement of The Bureau, but worth consideration.
   To ensure that The Bureau members have a vested interest in the StakeWise ecosystem, we could establish a minimum amount of SWISE that one would need to own in order to participate in The Bureau.
   Another requirement is that The Bureau member should have the needed skillset to understand / evaluate the work that is being done by the SWAT member.
   But let’s go back to the idea that a Bureau member should have an X amount of SWISE to participate. A control that we could place on the Bureau is that the Bureau member would need to “stake” X amount of SWISE when approving the Completed Work that a SWAT Member did. Basically the amount of SWISE staked by the Bureau member when approving the work needs to be effective enough that if the DAO vote rejects the SWAT Members work, the “staked” SWISE would be slashed from the Bureau member and returned back to the SWISE Rewards pool allocation.
   However if the work is accepted, the Bureau member would get the “staked” SWISE returned plus either a % reward or fixed amount for reward acceptance (this could be fleshed out in detail later). This then enables the Bureau Member to “earn rewards” for the time / work they do as a Bureau member and do so in a “moderated / regulated” fashion.

@chak

3. What kind of approval criteria should we consider for SWAT members? This can be baseline all the way to advanced.

I would think each task would have it’s own set of approval criteria. If multiple team members submit work for the same Assignment, either a winner takes all or as appropriate rewards could be given to the winner(s) as suggested previously.

@chak

4. Should we implement a requirement for SWAT member activity? For example, if a SWAT member hasn’t completed a task in x time periods should we remove them from the taskforce?

If we enable multiple SWAT members to “compete” for the same task, this may become a non-issue. Additionally, it will encourage the SWAT member to “put their best foot forward” when submitting work for a task.

@chak

5. Will we set up a time period for task lists or will it be like a live bounty board that SWAT members pick items off with their predefined pay? This of course depends on if the SWAT initiative is extended beyond the original four weeks.

I think this is very much a trial period - we could start with a limit of four weeks during the trial - but if our trial is successful, based on the task we could have “open ended” tasks vs. pre-defined. For example, if it’s “referring a resource” that could be considered an “open ended” task. If it is a task that would enable StakeWise to gain a competitive advantage, we would need to have a “pre-defined” time limit.

I just want to say - great post and thank you for helping to get the conversation started!

Eat Steak, Be Wise!

-Brian