Background and Problem
Historically, Warcamp has been organized as an umbrella DAO (Warcamp proper) and four subDAOs: the Magesmiths, Rangers, Paladins, and Alchemist circles. These circles are organized roughly by function, and many Warcamp projects and workstreams involve tight collaboration across circles.
That structure has worked well for the majority of Warcamp’s history, but there are several changes under way that are stretching its capabilities:
- Contributor growth: Warcamp’s contributor base is expanding, and expected to continue expanding even further in the near future.
- New contributors: Relatedly, we now have several new contributors who need to gain context.
- Modularization: the DAOhaus platform is being re-architected to support more modular development.
These changes are revealing several tensions.
- Contributor onboarding is challenging because there are so many things happening and they are not very legible to those without existing context and connections.
- We often find ourselves having meetings with upwards of 20 people at once, which is neither an efficient use of people’s time nor an effective way to develop & disseminate the appropriate information to reach consensus.
- Our integrated structure does not match our desired modular platform architecture. This could create a problem if we “ship our org structure”.
- We find ourselves wanting a way to spin up cross-functional workstreams, but are hesitant to do so in a top-down fashion.
- Moving towards a modular cross-functional workstream structure threatens our unified compensation program.
- It is becoming harder to collectively hold each other accountable to the responsibilities we informally take on.
Idea: Workstream Commitment Staking
The foundation of this idea is that attention/effort/time (here-after referred to as “commitment”) is a scarce resource. One that we have explicitly built into our systems via the Commitment Compensation Track.
Instead of prioritizing projects by allocating financial budget top-down from the DAO, under this approach we would identify relevant projects by individual contributors allocating their commitment across workstreams that they or others have spun up.
The result has the potential to be a bottom-up means of…
- prioritizing projects,
- defining of contributor role(s) and responsibilities,
- surfacing information about who is working on what
Also, it could create an organic, flexible, and fractal structure that naturally combines…
- functional “centers of excellence” (akin to our current circles)
- cross-functional workstreams (similar to the yeeter project)
- individual tasks / responsibilities (eg note-taker or tweeter)
Warcamp Commitment token (let’s call it $WCC here)
- Each cycle, Commitment Track contributors get an amount of $WCC equalivalent to their commitment % for that cycle
- Retroactive Track can allocate up to ==X== tokens at any given time, depending on where they are focused at that point
Workstreams. These can be almost anything, including…
- functional groups (eg “Rangers”)
- cross-functional workstreams (eg the yeeter project)
- individual tasks or responsibilities (eg note-taker or PR spokesperson)
- workstreams can be substreams of other workstreams
- Contributors can stake $WCC on workstreams to signal their commitment to and involvement in that workstream
- Contributors can unstake any number of $WCC from workstreams at any time, eg to switch to another workstream(s)
- Contributors can permissionlessly create new workstreams at any time and at any granularity
- Time x quantity of $WCC staked on each workstream
- in total and for each contributor
- Ideally some kind of dashboard to display this info
- Continues as-is in our flexible compensation program. Compensation continues to flow from Warcamp to contributors.
- Staking data could be used as an input into coordinape evaluations
We could simulate this at reasonable fidelity (though in a much more trusted way) in something like google sheets
Potential future enhancements
- Bring in a financial funding component for double-opt-in workstream spin-up (similar to Govrn’s Outcome Coalitions concept)
- Enable individuals (contributors or HAUS holders) to signal that it would be valuable for others to stake commitment on a particular workstream
- Enable some kind of granular permissioning for workstreams to help ensure that contributors are a good fit for what they’re working on
- Enable explicit fractal staking, ie staking $WCC on the Rangers workstream gives you Rangers Commitment tokens (say, $RC) to stake on substreams related to Rangers. This one is pretty intense
- allows us to maintain our current compensation structure
- bottom-up prioritization of of warcamp workstreams
- maintains contributor autonomy
- bottom-up and dynamic contributor “role” definition
- allows us to test this kind of staking mechanic for potential future externalization via conviction voting or something
- clearly defines working groups
- need to think more carefully through how this should work for retroactive track contributors
- doesn’t address HAUS utility/demand in the short run
- could be fairly complicated to implement
- probably a lot of other things I haven’t thought about