Eagle Operations Funding Proposal - 2023 Hi All, 
 Happy to present the Operations team Proposal for

Eagle Operations Funding Proposal - 2023

As promised here is the proposed updated Aragon Governance Proposal v2 (AGP-v2).
Aragon Voice and some new products that will be in V2 soon including Govern and Court are included in this process.
We have attached a live google doc here: <a href="https://docs.google.com/document/d/19maqf4-JmRKj7Qrsb5wNEn4k_ivBO6vYAnMpUI7pxaA/edit?usp=sharing">External - Aragon Governance Proposal - 12/05 - Google Docs 44</a>
Please provide any feedback you have on the document (as a comment) on any sections or points you would like to see changed. Any feedback is greatly appreciated!
As a high-level summary here is the process that we propose following:
Stage I: Sentiment Check Poll (using Aragon Voice) 
Stage II: Draft Proposal &amp; Strategy Committee Review 
Stage III: Consensus Check (using Aragon Voice) 
Stage IV: Final Improvement Proposal (Using Aragon Govern)
We would like to receive community feedback on this document. It builds on governance proposals from a workflow standpoint, like Uniswap, and incorporates new Aragon products, like Voice.
Look forward to hearing your thoughts!

New and Improved Aragon Governance Proposal! AGP-v2 As promised here is the proposed updated

New and Improved Aragon Governance Proposal! AGP-v2

Hi All,
Wanted to spin up a separate thread here to kick the conversation off around the changes to the charter that have come to the forefront during the discussion to transfer the Treasury to the AN DAO from the Aragon Association.
<aside>
<div>
<div></div>
<a href="https://forum.aragon.org/t/proposal-transfer-the-aragon-project-funds-to-an-aragon-dao-governed-by-delegated-ant/3369/1">Proposal: Transfer the Aragon Project Funds to an Aragon DAO Governed by (Delegated) ANT</a>
</div>
<blockquote>
Proposal Summary
Transfer the majority of the Aragon Project funds from the Aragon Association to a contract address controlled by ANT holders through a delegated voting system. All outflows from and changes to the contract address, as well as the delegated voting system, will be subject to a quorum requirement of 0.5% of ANT circulating, a 60% support threshold, and a minimum time delay of 5 days after the end of the voting period. Annual spend is initially capped at 10% of the starting (USD) value of the treasury.
</blockquote>
</aside>
Over the past months a number of teams and members have provided feedback. I have tried to pull a list together that will not be exhaustive. You can see them highlight bellow, this is simply a summary others can be discussed as well:
<ol>
<li>Changes to Quorum for Charter changes</li>
<li>Addition of Delegate Voting</li>
<li>Delegate voting rules</li>
<li>DAO signer rules</li>
<li>Tech Agnostic</li>
<li>Additional SUB-DAO members</li>
<li>Changes to Compensation for SUB-DAOs</li>
<li>Limits on the Treasury Spend</li>
<li>Consolidation of power within the Exec Sub-DAO</li>
<li>Exec Sub-DAO doing too many functions (operations and grants)</li>
<li>Voice Proposals that don’t include full text of the proposal (NB: forum posts can be edited and versioning of those posts is only accessible for forum administrators)</li>
<li>Structure and definition of guilds and whether or not these should fall within a Sub-DAO or be independent</li>
<li>Lack of a quarterly strategy defining what should be prioritised</li>
<li>Lack of budget for spending</li>
<li>AA team members or Sub-DAO committee members not being aligned on the proposal at the time it is made</li>
<li>New guilds being formed or work undertaken by the community that has already been done by the AA</li>
<li>The format and language of the document. It is exclusive and discriminatory by using complex and ambiguous phrasing. We cannot claim to be building the future of human centric DAOs and have as a foundational document something that requires substantial familiarity with legal contracts to comprehend. There are substantially more human-friendly versions - the examples here: <a href="https://thegraph.com/blog/introducing-the-graph-council">Introducing The Graph Council 2</a>, <a href="https://docs.ens.domains/v/governance/">Welcome to ENS DAO - ENS Documentation 1</a>, <a href="https://gardens.1hive.org/#/xdai/garden/0x1e2d5fb385e2eae45bd42357e426507a63597397/covenant">Gardens 1</a>
</li>
<li>Staked ANT Voting</li>
<li>Fair and open election process</li>
</ol>
These will probably all need there own separate threads of discussion if there are any other changes please add them bellow.
To kick start this though I would like to pick up on point One around the quorum needed for charter changes. At the moment it is set at 0.05% of the network which we have seen is much higher than the average participation that we have been achieving in votes &gt;0.2%. During this period of charter changes I would propose the charter change quorum be set at 0.2% of the network. This will be set for the period of 6 months or &gt;10% of the treasury being controlled by the DAO. This will allow for active research and changes to the charter to take place more smoothly.
At the the end of the defined time or when the DAO controls &lt;10% of the treasury the new quorum should be set at 20% higher than the average voter participation in that period.
This is a large discussion and actual changes to the charter should be recorded in github cc <a href="/u/mheuer">@mheuer</a> to allow for continuity of versions.
CC <a href="/u/fartunov">@fartunov</a>, <a href="/u/lee0007">@lee0007</a>, <a href="/u/daniel-ospina">@daniel-ospina</a> <a href="/u/tayy">@Tayy</a> <a href="/u/ronald_k">@ronald_k</a> <a href="/u/eaglelex">@eaglelex</a> <a href="/u/joeycharlesworth">@joeycharlesworth</a> and all others who would like to actively contribute to these changes.
I would like to put the first changes to vote by the 23rd of May at the latest.

Charter Updates - Discussion Hi All, 
 Wanted to spin up a separate thread here to kick

Charter Updates - Discussion

Dear Aragon Community,
We wanted to pull a proposal together to standardize the payments in the DAO for all contributors.
We are now a few months into paying contributors in the DAO and some of the hypotheses have been put to the test in the payment process. We hypothesized that a 60 Day rolling average ANT price would smooth the peaks and troughs for contributors in the DAO. It was also assumed that a 50/50 split of ANT would be the optimum amount. Both of this have proven ineffective on a day to day basis and the majority of the feedback we have received has been regarding the transaction fees, ANT price swings and the (diminished) ANT pay out. Therefore, we would like to propose two things that we aim to implement in season 1:
<ol>
<li>Split payment 70/30 (USDC/ANT)</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>The current 60-day rolling price average of ANT, does not have the desirable effect in terms of price.</li>
<li>As the price of ANT fluctuates over the payment period process which is currently 14 days, we would like to test to pay out a larger portion of the bounty in a stable coin</li>
<li>So we propose to pay out the bounty in 70% USDC and 30% ANT</li>
<li>As contributors we will receive more authority, as we can swap USDC later on back to ANT if you want (against low fees, due to proposal 2), When more governance rights are desired, they can easily (cheap and fast if Polygon) swap their USDC towards ANT in the desired proportion (hence more authority)</li>
</ul>
<ol>
<li>Transition USDC from ETH chain to Polygon chain (reduce transaction costs)</li>
</ol>
<ul>
<li>Paying on Ethereum mainnet is extremely expensive for contributors</li>
<li>Transactions can get blocked for hours or even days if a low gas fee is used</li>
<li>Not capital efficient</li>
</ul>
Technical Requirements 
To move USDC from Ethereum to Polygon, we propose the HOP bridge can be used:
Hop is a scalable rollup-to-rollup general token bridge. It allows users to send tokens from one rollup (or mainnet) to another almost immediately without having to wait for the rollup’s challenge period.
In addition, Hop has never been hacked and has multiple audits under its beltl, see <a href="https://help.hop.exchange/hc/en-us/articles/4405172444429-How-safe-is-Hop-">https://help.hop.exchange/hc/en-us/articles/4405172444429-How-safe-is-Hop- 1</a>. Alternatives like Synapse protocol have higher TVL than Hop, however, parts of Synapse have not been audited, see <a href="https://docs.synapseprotocol.com/reference/faq#security-and-analytics">FAQ - Synapse Protocol</a>
TVL graphs:
Hop:<a href="https://defillama.com/protocol/hop-protocol"> https://defillama.com/protocol/hop-protocol</a>
Synapse: <a href="https://defillama.com/protocol/synapse"> https://defillama.com/protocol/synapse</a>
Finally, there is also the official Polygon bridge at <a href="https://wallet.polygon.technology/bridge">Polygon Web Wallet v2 2</a>, however, it seems like this bridge is constantly under maintenance and it is slower and less efficient than Hop.
Hop interface to move USDC to Polygon can be accessed here:
<aside>
 <header>
 

 <a href="https://app.hop.exchange/#/send?token=USDC&amp;sourceNetwork=ethereum&amp;destNetwork=polygon" target="_blank">app.hop.exchange</a>
 </header>

 <article>
 

<h3><a href="https://app.hop.exchange/#/send?token=USDC&amp;sourceNetwork=ethereum&amp;destNetwork=polygon" target="_blank">Hop Exchange 1</a></h3>

 Send your tokens across Ethereum scaling solutions


 </article>

 <div>
 
 
 </div>

 <div></div>
</aside>

By default, funds are bridged over to the same address and the source address, but it’s possible to also bridge to a different address by defining a custom recipient.
By transitioning USDC over to Polygon, we provide the contributors completing bounties greater flexibility when they are paid so that they can swap back into whatever percentage allocation they want without incurring in high fees.
We would appreciate the AN Tech Sub-DAOs input on the bridge they feel is the most secure.
This proposal also paves the way for streaming payments using Superfluid, which we are exploring for future implementation.
Conclusions
The payment process was never finalized for the DAO and we would like to propose this become the standard for all guilds, contributors and teams across the DAO. We appreciate this will not be perfect for all contributors but we have aimed for a balanced approach and we would appreciate your input on the split and other aspects of the proposal.
Proposers: <a href="/u/alexclay">@alexclay</a>, <a href="/u/dxiri">@dxiri</a>, Shivam &amp; <a href="/u/ricktik6">@Ricktik6</a>

Standardizing Payments in the AN DAO Dear Aragon Community, 
 We wanted to pull a proposal

Standardizing Payments in the AN DAO

Over the previous months we have seen increasing confusion to make payments and operate the technology of the DAO within the constraints of the Charter. The main issue is the feedback loop for technical issues that we are facing such as with USDC payments. The members who have been waiting for USDC have been kind to us so far and their patience has not gone unnoticed but it is an untenable situation that needs to be solved ASAP as the number of payments increase.
The core portion of this is I would like to propose that for payments we use a Multisig. There are a number of reasons for this.
<ol>
<li>Speed Up the Feedback Loop on technical errors</li>
<li>Payments that have been approved should need not need to wait seven days to be paid out</li>
</ol>
There are then two options identified for spinning up a multisig for payments in the current structure.
Option 1
<ol>
<li>transition the Executive Sub-DAO a multisig with the ability to make payments. One of the core pieces of feedback we have received is that it is complex and unclear how payments are currently being made to contributors.</li>
</ol>
For this to pass I would propose increasing the membership from 3 to 7 and building a multisig which would have the responsibility of approving financial proposals and spinning out workstreams that support the network, it would also be able to approve grants for the DAO (4 out of 7 signer wallet). I would propose merging the ops proposal together with this to make one larger workstream:<a href="https://forum.aragon.org/t/core-dao-operations-funding-proposal/3195">Core DAO Operations - Funding proposal 1</a> 
This would operate efficiently at first but may need to be spun out into separate work streams down the line. In the MVP form of the DAO, separation of these functions is probably a hindrance to the DAO becoming an efficient entity.
Option 2
Option 2) Remove the responsibility of Payments from the Executive Sub DAO to a Ops multisig which has the sole purpose of making payments. The Executive Sub DAO can then focus their time on more valuable endeavours such as grants. This Ops multisig would then simply be acting as the escrow account for the DAO and make payments.
Both of these will benefit the whole DAO as we will have the ability to make payments quickly. To be clear the use of a Multisig does not solve all the challenges such as complex batch payments.
Multisig Rules
Included in this change/ transition to a multisig in both options there should be rules around the signers including:
<ul>
<li>All transactions must be signed within 1 week</li>
<li>All transactions must be signed (can be abstain)</li>
<li>If three transactions are missed without a valid reason, signer is removed and replaced with an appropriate member</li>
</ul>
To help make this change, I would like to propose that the responsibilities and technical structure that the sub-DAOs currently operate in be removed from the charter and referenced as a IPFS document or reduce the quorum required to make changes to this section. Rational for this is the AN DAO needs to be flexible and responsibilities need to be able to be updated and spin out new sub-daos as a result changes would only need a simple majority and not the 0.5% that is currently required for charter changes.
At the same time we would like to update the Sub-DAOs responsibilities to make it clear what their roles are within the DAO and remove the ambiguity.
This is a large topic, as such would appreciate it if we can keep feedback on this to the use of Multisigs, the options proposed (any other options) and other ways in which speed and efficiency could be improved.
Thanks,
Alex

Eagle Operations Funding Proposal - 2023

New and Improved Aragon Governance Proposal! AGP-v2

Charter Updates - Discussion

Standardizing Payments in the AN DAO

Proposed Update to Charter - Journey towards Multisig for Payments

Got something to add?