YAM ReOrg Silo Creation and May Grant Application

YAM Re-Org Silo Creation and May Grant Application

1. What is your name? Pseudonyms are cool too. :disguised_face:

Who is the point person is for the application?

@ross, @designer

2. What is your discord/telegram handle? :speaking_head:

Discord: Ross :sweet_potato:#2221, designer#6682

3. Project Name :building_construction:

What should we call your project?

YAM Re-Org and Upgrade - May 2022 Grant In this application, we intend to create the YAM Re-Org Silo (described below in question 4) and apply for a 1 month grant to do the specific scope of work outlined in question 6.

4. Project Description :thinking: (140 words or less)

Give a summary of the project you are proposing

This project 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, and provide an example structure for how funded projects can be run.

5. About You :busts_in_silhouette:

Tell us about you and your team. What experience do you and your team have that is relevant to the project. Please provide github profiles, websites, prior work, etc

The main team consists of current YAM contributors @ross, @designer, and @chilly (chilly working under another grant). Contributions from other participants during the next month’s scope of work who are not mentioned above will be noted and added to next month’s grant proposal.

All 3 of us have been working full time at YAM for the last year. We have been part of, and learned from, prior DAO work on governance, branding, and organization, and seen first hand what has worked and what has not.

Ross original proposal to contribute: Full-time contributor request for Ross
Designer Original Proposal to contribute:Full-time contributor request for Jim | designer
Chilly’s information should be reviewed on his separate grant application: Yam Design Studio

Reports on the work the above contributors have done in the last few months can be reviewed here by viewing their individual compensation requests/transparency reports: Contributor Compensation - Yam Forum

6. Project Goals and Scope :rocket:

If the project succeeds, what goals will it achieve? How do we measure that success? Please provide specific KPIs. If you are unsure of how to do this, do the best you can and we can work it out together.

The Goals of this project are to upgrade the structure of YAM for the better. 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 scope of this grant proposal is 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 few months, we will work on a number of different pieces and projects that will eventually come together to provide an a complete framework of the new model as well as an example of how the DAO can use this model in the future.

We have already been working on this project for the last few months and are now ready to transition our working structure to test out the new model. You can review the prior work done by visiting https://yam.super.site and https://yam-reorg-docs.super.site

The deliverables that we intend to prepare by June 1st, 2022 are as follows:

  • We will go through the full grant process over the next month. This application is the first step.

  • We will further refine the work started in the links above that explains the changes, outlines the process, and provides templates and expectations for creating new grant/silo proposals.

  • The work done last month focused on the theory and ideological underpinnings of the changes to the DAO. This month we will focus on refining and documenting the governance structure that is required to make the DAO and grants program run smoothly including:

  • Specifying and beginning to implement the Gov-Ops Council.

  • Documenting the roles for different stakeholders in governance

  • Begin producing in-depth documentation for different parts of the governance process as proposed.

  • Further formulate and develop the secondary elements that are impacted by governance decisions (Treasury yield distribution, potential governance upgrades, etc)

This work will be added to the DAO’s living documentation for those who wish to contribute in the future.

Success should be measured by the quality of these documents and their ability to explain the value of the changes that are being made. We expect this documentation to be the foundation for further development and improvement within the DAO.

7. Milestones :placard:

What are the steps that you plan to follow to complete this project. Is it one step or multiple? If there are multiple then please list all of them.

We plan to finish and publish deliverables by early June, 2022. We expect that they may exist in a semi-finished state and will require additional work in subsequent months. The deliverables are intended to show progress to YAM token holders.

8. YAM / Ecosystem Benefit :blush:

What value does your project add to YAM and the wider ecosystem? How do we measure that benefit?

The benefit of this work to the YAM ecosystem is that it will provide the foundation for a better functioning DAO and to then test that framework. YAM contributors have been focused on building products that will bring revenue into the treasury, but we have been doing it in a haphazard way with little structure or oversight. This has lead to delays, confusion, stagnation, and an inefficient use of treasury funds. This reorganization attempts to solve the deeper issues present in the structure of the DAO that have hampered progress so far. Additionally, In using the process proposed to do the work, we are also testing its robustness for use in attracting contributors to propose grants in the future.

9. Funding Request and Breakdown :money_with_wings:

Please include the total funding amount that you need and also include a breakdown of how the funds will be used across each part of the project.

Funding Amount Requested: Total: $15,875.00, split 70% in USDC and 30% in YAM at the 30-day TWAP price on June 1st. By Contributor:

  • Ross - 30 hrs/week = 0.75 * $10,000 full time monthly rate = $7,500
  • Designer - 30 hrs/week = 0.75 * $11,166 full time monthly rate = $8,375
  • Chillzone - Scope of work will be folded under Yam Design Studio Silo and grant.

10. Other Information :question:

Imagine you’re a YAM holder. What else do you think we should know about your application?

Existing conversations and work can be followed here: Discord

Work from the prior month can be found here: https://yam.super.site/ and here: https://yam-reorg-docs.super.site/

More work and writing on the upgrade can be found here: https://yamdao.notion.site/Organizational-ideas-b0cb9399f8824d9d8b6f2c54d79a2bce

We will continue to work in public and welcome all contributions and additions. Please reach out to one of the listed contributors if you would like to help.

1 Like

There should probably be just one point person to avoid disagreements in the future. It doesn’t seem that important for this proposal, but we should have a standard convention.

I think the silo members vs those that may contribute are/should be different lists. The intent of this section is to understand who all is participating and how their prior experience will contribute to the success of the goals and milestones set forth in this application. I don’t see an issue with silo members delegating or outsourcing tasks to other parties, but it should be clear that the silo members have all the experience, talent and resources needed to accomplish the application’s stated goals.

Could you and @designer handle this on your own or will you need @chilly and others?

Additionally, I think it is inappropriate for silo’s to hand-wave profiles for their members that include prior work because they have contributed in the past. I’d like more details here about past work history and how it’d be relevant in accomplishing these goals.

^ Emphasis mine

With the way that this section of the application is presented, it is difficult to ascertain what the end result would be in a month. It looks like there are just a few sections missing in the links provided and I don’t support the idea of unfinished work as a goal. Considering that this scope only covers one month of work would you mine outlining exactly how many documents or articles the would be produced who would be in charge of what and how you imagine severability would work (one of you completes their portion and the other doesn’t).

There aren’t any KPIs here that I as voter could follow to see if you were successful. If success is measured by “quality”, is that to say that if the DAO believes these documents weren’t of “quality” you’d expect only a portion of the funds you are requesting? Who is going to determine “quality”?

A project like this provides little value if left unfinished so it might be worth it to carve it out in chunks that amount to sizable progress with more specific goals.

Seems like you responded to the question for the Silo’s mission instead of this specific application’s scope. The reorganization as whole makes sense and I support that, but I’m not seeing the specific benefit of this scope in the larger picture. It doesn’t seem as if the framework is expected to be complete by June 1st (maybe I’m mistaken), so testing the framework being a benefit of this application doesn’t make sense to me.

There is no breakdown here with how the funds would be allocated across the goals or milestones that you specified in sections 6 or 7.

One more thing…

We are half-way through May, is the plan to condense the work to meet that June 1st deadline, push back the date once approved via snapshot or have you been working on this and are expecting retro active funding?

There are 2 people who can be contacted about this application. They are listed.

What is listed are the people we expect to contribute to this grant over the next month (until June 1st). Silos don’t have members. Grants have recipients. The recipients of this grant are me, and @designer. We are not planning to outsource this work. @chilly will be doing design work to communicate the ideas presented as part of his own grant, as described in the original post, and will be part of our internal discussions. The point about other contributors is to leave open the chance that others will contribute. If so, that will be addressed in future grant proposals.

I have added links to more information about the qualifications and work that @designer and I have and have done over the last year.

The end result is that further work will be done on the YAM re-org as described in the original post and we will present deliverables that represent what is described. The work is combined, so if one of us fails to do their work then the other either should pick up the slack or the work will be incomplete.

The full scope of work of designing and implementing a new operational system for YAM can not be completed in 1 month. It will take longer than that and I am not at a point where I can present an arbitrary deadline for it. Hence why we are giving deliverables for the work be DO think can be done in a month and work toward those.

If your concern is that the scope of the full YAM Re-org project is not clearly enough defined, then that is another question and we can work on doing so.

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.

This is exactly what we are doing.

this application’s scope is to further the work on the YAM reorg project that we have been working on for the last few months. The benefit of this grant is to move it forward so that the goals of the silo’s mission can be met in the future. This is the scope of work that we believe is necessary at this moment. If the scope of this grant doesn’t make sense to you, then you can choose to vote against it, or apply to do what does make sense to you. You are welcome to participate in the conversations that we have been having about next steps if you think there are better uses of time, but this is what we are and have been working on this month).

They go toward the deliverables described as a whole, broken down by contributor. There are no intermediate milestones or goals. This grant is already created to complete intermediate (1 month long) goals and milestones to the larger Yam Re-Org silo.

We have been working on the scope listed above since the beginning of the month (May) and the deliverables will be completed by and presented at the beginning of June. We are testing this in real time. There will be kinks, but that is why we are doing it.

^ Ok, lets get this updated on the template then.

It seems that this isn’t an application to do something in the future like the intent of silos/grants are. Although you didn’t use the same language as I did (and maybe there was some distinction you were trying to make), it sounds like this will be awarded retroactively. There is nothing to veto but the result which to me sounds like the same old system as before. I hope that the grant for June could be started a bit earlier so we can have meaningful discussion on goals and milestones.

It looks like Ross has covered off on most of your comments. The input is helpful in terms of understanding the kinds of questions token holders have and may have with future grant/silo requests. So thanks for that!

Addressing these questions: You are correct in that this application is not so much about proposing future work, rather, it is an application created at the cusp of the change over from the old ‘aggregated contributor model’ and to the new ‘grants/silo model’. It’s a bit like changing horses mid ride. Instead of stopping work, we continued working in good faith while at the same time changing to the grants model. There are two reasons for this: 1) to keep things moving forward working out the new model for implementation, and 2) to use the month of May as a beta test of the new model. It’s a test and as such we are gaining valuable insights in the very process we are engaged in right now.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by “…sounds like the same old system as before.” Do you think the work being proposed is not of value? Perhaps you can expand on your statement so as we can learn from what you see is, or is not valuable in terms of the reorg project.

Finally, I agree with your request for the June grant to be provided earlier. I’ll speak with Ross about that and get his input on how to move forward after the May work.


My comment in this context is not about the value of the work. It is about how the grant/silo system in contrast to the fulltime/parttime contributor model. We are more than halfway through the month and it seems like there is no intent to get this passed in a snapshot to approve the application. That’s okay, I understand that there are a lot of changes going on at once and you opted for continuity. It just wasn’t clear in this application or in @ross’s reply where he says that I could “veto this application”.

This application follows a similar model as the old one in YIP-100 where a contributor gets paid based on the work already done vs outlining ahead of time what will be done and getting that approved. In no way, do I believe that this work and the work you have completed so far (without promise of pay!) is not of value to the DAO.

I feel as if a test of the new framework, should be an application/grant that does not get retroactively funded since essentially that was what YIP-100 was about. I understand time constraints around gaining consensus made that untenable this time around for this application, but I’d love to see future grants shoot for approval vs retroactive funding.

This post will document the work done on the YAM ReOrg silo over the past month for token holders to review and compare to the grant application.

You can see individual compensation requests for @ross and @designer here:
Ross: 22.06.03- Specific Architectures (Ross) Contributor Compensation Request
Designer: 2022-06-03 - Designer's Silo Compensation Report for May 2022

Below are excerpts from those posts showing the work done:

I am going to write my end of month reaction and discuss what we achieved and what we learned. Here are the stated deliverables from the original post.

We did this and also went through the grant process with @Snake which was helpful in understanding what isn’t clear and what we need to work on. Building out the standards for documentation around requirements and specifications is going to be very important, and the application form that I created for this process is not sufficient and may give the impression that is all that is needed.

Going through the process also helps us understand where we are relying on the prior mechanisms and handwaving away some of the complexities. Next month, when we do it again we need to use what we have learned and try and get the rest of the team on-board with this new model.

  • We will further refine the work started in the links above that explains the changes, outlines the process, and provides templates and expectations for creating new grant/silo proposals.

@designer has done a really good job of distilling down the ideas that have been proposed and makes it more easy to understand the why. I will admit that I have not been as successful at outlining the full process and it is something I need to focus more on next month.

  • The work done last month focused on the theory and ideological underpinnings of the changes to the DAO. This month we will focus on refining and documenting the governance structure that is required to make the DAO and grants program run smoothly including:
    • Specifying and beginning to implement the Gov-Ops Council.
    • Documenting the roles for different stakeholders in governance
    • Begin producing in-depth documentation for different parts of the governance process as proposed.

Progress on understanding the gov-ops council has been slow and I change my mind about how it should work seemingly weekly. I am conflicted about the best way to get solid vetting and quality control for projects while maintaining objectivity and preventing bias. The roles and responsibilities of the gov-ops council needs to be thoroughly thought through and discussed.

Understanding the roles of different stakeholders will help with this and it has been documented here and here (sorry the second link is messy). In the end, this is a question of how much influence token holders want to give to those who vet projects and how much to pay them.

  • Further formulate and develop the secondary elements that are impacted by governance decisions (Treasury yield distribution, potential governance upgrades, etc)

This is something that didn’t get a whole bunch of time spent on it, although I did work through some questions about issuance and compensation, which are ultimately closely related to the grants system. I hope those posts can stir some conversation and help move this forward.

Next month

We will put together a proposal for our June work early next week, but I will dive into what I think it will include.

  • I would like to focus more on nailing down more of the details around gov-ops and how we vet proposals and give token holders the information that they need.
  • In doing that we need to bring the other parties who are not currently working under this model in to test it out. That is really only @ethe and @mona and I think we can work something out.
  • More diagrams!
  • I have a plan for a github based document repository for snapshot, on-chain, and grant proposals with a simple static front-end that I want to start playing around with.

I will think about this over the weekend and then get together with @designer to figure out the next steps and put up our proposal for next month’s work.

Thanks for reading :heart:


Thanks for doing this summary.

I’d like to recommend that we move to submitting a 3 month (quarterly) proposal for work on the Yam Reorg. This will cut down on the administration workload. However, by submitting monthly compensation requests for each of the 3 months of the grant proposal, token holders will still have the same control over evaluating work performed and compensation paid.

With this scenario the next Yam Reorg grant proposal will be for Q3 2022, which fits quite nicely given the fact that Q3 is just beginning.