YAM ReOrg 3 month Grant Request (June-August)

YAM ReOrg Silo 3 month Grant (June-August)

This grant application is the second grant within the existing Yam ReOrg Silo. For this grant @Ross and @Designer intend to change from a monthly to a quarterly grant period.

The purpose of the quarterly grant is to streamline the process on long-term and or ongoing Silo projects. The desired effect is a lighter governance load so both silo participants and token holders are less bogged down in unneeded governance processes.

Quarterly Grant

This quarterly (3 month) grant request serves as a funding container. It will work as follows:

  1. Each silo participant provides an hourly range with a monthly not to exceed maximum

  2. At the end of each month transparency reports are filed by the silo participants

  3. Payments are paid on a monthly basis based on the actual hours worked

  4. Token holders always retain the ability to stop a silo by submitting a Snapshot proposal

Why Quarterly?

Besides the reduced management overhead, the advantage to the silo structure is that it provides a high level of flexibility for the silo participants to manage their own time and project. The idea is to avoid participant burn out, apathy or abandonment of projects through striking a balance between freedom and accountability. Flexible hourly commitments can encourage long-term participant involvement while providing a mechanism that allows for payment of the work the participant is able to provide each given pay period.

We think this is a good beta test for this kind of grant structure within an ongoing silo project.

About The Yam ReOrg Silo

This Silo aims to build a new framework for the YAM DAO to facilitate better transparency, accountability, and permissionless-ness. It does so by developing a new process by which projects can receive funding. It will clarify the governance process, define and limit the roles of core contributors.


The main team consists of current YAM contributors @ross, @designer. The work of this silo is in part a collaboration with another silo by @chilly (the Yam Design Studio silo which is under another grant). All 3 listed silo members have been working full time at YAM for the last year.


We have watched as the DAO has struggled to find its purpose and has struggled to retain mindshare and contributors. We believe that the causes of this are multi-faceted, including a lack of vision around the mission of the DAO, a lack of thought and investment in the core organizational infrastructure of the DAO, an inability to enforce accountability, and confusion around management of projects.

Solving these problems is a large task to undertake and measuring success will require long term tracking. The first grant proposal (for May 2022) was to design and implement the first stages of this process to show a proof of concept, as well as educate the wider community about the changes that we are making.

Over the next three months, we will work on defining a more complete presentation of what makes a good DAO, goals for the Yam DAO reorg and a framework for a new Yam DAO model. We will work on specifying and creating requirements documentation for the different pieces that need to be built in order to make this system work.

You can review the work in progress by visiting https://yam.super.site and https://yam-reorg-docs.super.site v1 Docs and v2 Docs.

Goals and Deliverables

Over the 3 month grant period we will focus on refining and documenting the following:

Design of Core Reorg

Re-Org Docs (YAM RePlanted) and synopsis articles.

  • Concise statement of the Yam ReOrg project purpose and main objectives (90% complete)
  • Article 1: What makes a good DAO - documentation that serves as a guiding target (80% complete)
  • Article 2: Goals for a new Yam DAO - success definition and specific goals (80% complete)
  • Article 3: New Yam DAO model - how grants, silos and a gov-ops council will work (50% complete)
  • Diagramming and refinement (30% complete)

Milestone 1: Substantial completion of all above to hand off for presentation work by YAM Design Studio Silo on June 27th.

After completion of Reorg Docs, Develop Templates for:

  • Pre-grant application
  • Project Requirements document
  • Grant Application
  • Counter-Bid document
  • Grant objection document

These documents to be worked on as part of milestone 2.

Presentation and Consensus

Present new Yam DAO model and communication materials once completed by YAM Design Studio. (early-mid July)

  • Coordinate with Chilly to present documents and articles on the new supersite website, twitter, medium, etc.

  • Respond to questions, concerns, etc.

  • Formally present content for review and feedback to confirm consensus among stakeholders.

Milestone 2: Vote to approve new process and more forward into implementation

Specification and Implementation

  • Based on final consensus, begin the specification and implementation process
  • Implement enough structure for grants process to begin. Refine and publish templates.
  • Specify and begin to implement the Gov-Ops Council.
  • Specification and development of “Governance Repo,” the location and process for storing and updating new grants and governance proposals.

Complementary initiatives:

(to be worked on as time permits)

  • Treasury Yield Distribution design
  • Governance contract upgrades
  • Token Issuance strategy and design
  • Vision and Values documentation and ratification
  • Protocol owned liquidity strategy and design

Because much of the current work is design focused, the work follows an iterative process in which discoveries in later phases may change the design. We expect that the broad strokes of the re-org are complete and ready to be presented at the end of June, and look forward to getting additional feedback. This feedback may impact the final product and require some re-working. The same goes for the design of the complementary initiatives, although the current design for the re-org has been crafted with them in mind.

Funding Amount Requested:

Total amount to be split 70% in USDC and 30% in YAM at the 30-day TWAP price on the first day of the month after the month for which compensation is being requested. By Contributor:


Range 25 to 35 hrs/week = $8,500 minimum and $11,900 maximum per month

(compensation based on $85 per hr)


Range 20 to 30 hrs/week = $6,800 minimum and $10,200 maximum per month

(compensation based on $85 per hr)

Work on this grant has already begun (beginning of June) so compensation requests in July will be for the entire month.

:heart: :rocket: :sweet_potato:

1 Like

Draft Requirements Document is located here: YAM-rePlanted/YAM Replanted requirements.md at master · rossgalloway/YAM-rePlanted · GitHub

You aren’t following the proposal template and I don’t think it is for the better as items such as relevant previous history, prior experience required, eco system benefits and breakdowns are harder to follow in this format.

As I stated before in the context of this silo, there aren’t clear KPIs to asses the relative success that this grant brings from the work you did last month. How are we to measure benefit?

Seems that your hourly rate has increased by over 20 percent in less than half a month, does that speak to the difficulty of this silo? Please clarify.

In a prior proposal you wrote:

My time:

  • Prior work to deploy 2-key contract and research - 4 hours
  • prior general scope of work research - 8 hours
  • code writing to include in on-chain transaction - 8 hours
  • UMA vote testing - 4 hours
  • Documentation - 16 hours

Could you give a similar breakdown as to how you expect you will achieve milestone 1?

and Milestone 2

the original post in which relevant prior history, experience, etc is linked to in the first sentence of this post.

The goals of what Designer and I want the re-org to achieve are stated in the requirements doc located in the post above yours and also in this document: Broad Goals. The KPIs for success are not easily defined into numbers, but require that those who are judging the quality of the work to make an assessment of whether they believe those goals are being met by the content of the work and whether the proposal is understandable and communicates how those goals are achieved. As I wrote in response to you last month:

The DAO (token holders) will be the ultimate arbiters of success and quality. If token holders do not view the work that we are doing as being of a sufficiently high standard then they can refuse this application and we will do on our ways. If they don’t like the work completed at the end of the month, they can choose not to pay us, or negotiate a different amount. Or they can choose not to fund our next grant.

Regarding the rate:
@designer and I decided that we should be charging the same amount for the work due to our collaboration. The rate was set based on a roughly 25% reduction of Designer’s base rate that he typically charges for this type of work.

Regarding breaking down the work:
I can speak for myself. I am focusing on developing the grants process more thoroughly. Part of this is finalizing the documentation in the last section of the docs I am working on and producing diagrams to better explain everything. My other focus in on creating the templates for the different docs listed in the original post so that they can be commented on at the same time. I help edit the articles the Jim is working on (which are based on the docs I am writing).

Milestone 1 is the point at which most of the work on the docs and articles should be complete so @chilly can make it sing with his website. We will coordinate with him to answer any questions, make changes to things, etc. We will keep track of our time doing so and only bill for those hours.

Milestone 2 involves presenting all this work for stakeholders to confirm that they like it and want it to be implemented as the law of the land. I don’t actually know how much time that is going to take. That is why I have included the other work that can be done at the same time: template and document development and work on complementary initiatives, which can be fit in when time is available.

All the work done during each month will be presented and made public for stakeholders to view and vet, and if they do not believe that it is up to the standard that they expect from what they approved then they can object and submit a snapshot vote to determine if payment should occur or continue.

I will be putting this grant application up for a snapshot vote in the next day or 2.

My comment was about consistency and formatting. You started the template and are proposing other templates in this proposal, yet it seems you don’t care to follow templates. :thinking:

Goals and KPIs aren’t the same thing. You can’t come up with any KPIs that would help measure the benefit of this proposal? You don’t think you can measure engagement, new members, page visits, retweets, proposals submitted, etc.? You might not have experience in defining them, but it is not an impossible task or even difficult in my opinion. Get a baseline for what you are looking to improve and look for a way to measure that improvement.

Rates are typically set by relevant work experience and skillsets required for the task. This rate seems pretty high for technical writing even in the USA.

You have been working on this effort for over 6 months and are requesting 3 more months of funding. This would be your second rate increase in 6 months and there is still no concrete plan as to how this all comes together to measurably benefit the DAO.

I don’t understand why voters should be paying above market rates for technical writing with loose requirements and goals like “substantial completion” and organizational architecting from a building architect. @designer has all the branding and marketing experience but has a lower estimated range of weekly contributions.

Seems you misunderstood my request.

You only have 2 milestones in this grant and milestone 1 is, by your estimation, over 66% complete. So can you breakdown how much funding has gone into that 66%? Estimate of funding for the rest?

for example:

  • xx hours writing
  • xx hours editing
  • xx hours researching
  • xx hours creating diagrams

Same for milestone 2 would be nice.

Additionally for milestone 2, what does “presenting all this work for stakeholders” mean? Isn’t the website the presentation or are you planning to submit a video overview? Something else?

Reading @ethe’s development plan and the lack of cohesion with this plan has me doubting the need for this 9 month (or longer?) effort. The DAO is missing innovation in products/ offerings, marketing partnerships, treasury analysis, accurate dashboards and more contributors. This is none of that.

Yes I agree this is a necessary base structure for Yam DAO.

My opinion is that we should get this council running with proper guidelines and limitations as soon as possible.

Looking good, we need structure to limit uncertainty in order for Yam DAO to move forward.