RRC-XX Tokenomics Working Group Proposal

[jengajojo]

Abstract

This proposal aims to establish a Tokenomics Working Group (TokWG) within the RARI DAO for a period of three months. The ‘TokWG’ will operate for three months, with the primary goal of researching & proposing the first draft of tokenomics strategies to enhance the economic sustainability and growth of the RARI DAO ecosystem

Motivation

Effective tokenomics is critical for the long-term success and sustainability of any crypto product. With the rapid growth of the crypto space as well as the DAO, it is imperative to revisit and refine our tokenomics model to ensure it aligns with the community’s goals and fosters sustainable growth. Establishing a dedicated TokWG will provide the necessary focus and expertise to develop innovative and effective tokenomics solutions.

Rationale

Forming a TokWG will enable a concentrated effort on improving RARI’s tokenomics. By leveraging the collective expertise within our community and external advisors, we can create well-researched and tailored tokenomics strategies. This focused approach increases the likelihood of developing successful solutions that drive value for our ecosystem.

Key Terms

Tokenomics: The economic model governing the creation, distribution, and value of tokens within an ecosystem

Specification

Goals

• Conduct comprehensive research on current tokenomics models & identify best practices.
• Create a draft proposal for a possible set of tokenomics solutions tailored to the RARI ecosystem.
• Provide detailed documentation on the recommended solutions
• Gather community feedback on the proposed solutions to refine & improve them

Timeline

Month 1: Group formation and initial research
Month 2: Identification of potential tokenomics models, development & gathering solutions
Month 3: Finalisation of first draft of the recommendations, clear documentation & presentation to the DAO.

KPIs

#number of researched solution
#biweekly WG updates

MoS

• Draft proposal with clear documentation & actionable recommendations

Multi-sig policies

• Assuming a 5 member squad, the multi-sig will be structured as 3 out of 5
• 10% of the compensation will be sent at the start of the project
• 40% of the compensation will be sent upon delivery of the first draft of the tokenomics solutions
• All remaining compensation will be sent upon submission of recommendation
• Multi-sig address 0xC805b3Cd0686c9F6d406b1BF9ae64fA28FF7E88e

Roles & responsibilities of each member

Project Lead/Steward: @jengajojo

Oversees the group, coordinates tasks, and ensures milestones are met.

Research Analysts: @Jaf + @Sixty

Conduct in-depth research on tokenomics models and trends.

Foundation representative: @addie

Works with the RARI foundation to coordinate efforts and resources

Scribe: @coffee-crusher

Prepares detailed documentation of the recommended solutions.

Budget

Role	Quantitiy	Compensation (RARI)
Steward	1	3000
Research Analyst	2	6000
Foundation representative	1	0
Scribe	1	3000
Buffer		1000
Total ask		13000

[Jaf]

This proposal is up for voting until Mon Jun 24

Tally | Rari DAO | RRC-26 Tokenomics Working Group Proposal

[jengajojo]

This proposal has passed onchain vote on tally

[Sixty]

Hey @jengajojo, It’s great to see this proposal has passed; as project lead, what are the next steps for coordinating the formation of this working group?

[jengajojo]

The proposal did not include the code for transferring the budgeted tokens to the multi-sig address.

The options I see are:

1. Post a new proposal with the execution code
   -Or-
2. TokWG delivers the output as stated in this post and gets retroactively rewarded by making another post’

@Sixty @Jaf @coffee-crusher What do you all think?

[coffee-crusher]

By “not including the code for transferring”, I’m presuming that you mean that this proposal did not include the address of the multisig wallet, or do you mean that it didn’t include the tx address for the transferred budgeted tokens?

Of the two options, I prefer option # 1. Posting a new proposal with the execution code allows for it to be on-chain for future reference, especially when we’re referring to the transparency of the token’s budget.

[jengajojo]

the post on forum had all the necessary details to schedule token transfer including the address and the total amount, but the post on tally did not have the code snippet which transfers these tokens upon the proposal being passed.

[coffee-crusher]

Got it. OK, so I still stand by my option # 1 of a new proposal that includes that as follow up. I’m presuming that Option # 1 also require it also to go to Tally?

[Jaf]

IMO its more practical to go with option 2.
Going the proposal route again seems a bit unnecessary for me.

This can be a quick topic for discussion in the gov call.

[Sixty]

Hey, guys @jengajojo @coffee-crusher @Jaf @addie, I think it would be best to coordinate the next steps outside of the forum and share our final decision afterward. It’s important to ensure all of us are aligned before the start of the working group. Could you set up a group chat for coordination @jengajojo.

[addie]

gm, @jengajojo and I spoke about a channel for coordination in discord. i created the “│tokenomics” channel under the /DAO section of the server for the working group to use. please let me know if you have any questions or additional requests for the channel. thank you!

[bitblondy]

How do we proceed with this?
As far as I understand, the working group was approved in a proposal, but the compensation was missing. And for the corrected one, the proposal was defeated?

I’m reading on Tally that @Matt_StableLab’s concern for changing their opinion was mainly, that the governance working group should be the first one. Does the approval of the governance working group now allow for a resubmission of this proposal, or do you have additional concerns?

[Sixty]

GM GM, I’m Just throwing my 2 cents in here; as a newer participant in this DAO, I’m not sure how exactly to move this particular situation, but I would obviously like to hear more from other members.

So as it stands,

1. The initial proposal for a Tokenomics working group passed. This proposal unfortunately did not have the code necessary to move the RARI requested for compensation to the TokWG multisig.

2. A second proposal (a corrected version of the first proposal) was created to address the above issue, this proposal did not reach quorum, and in addition to that, @Matt_StableLab had voted against it despite voting FOR initially. Everyone else who had participated previously had voted the same.

3. The reasoning for @Matt_StableLab, who is the largest RARI delegate, voting against the corrected version was that this working group was redundant due to the creation of a Governance Working Group. The Governance Working Group, however, does not have any mandate or goals to address or research tokenomics, so this is not exactly a strong reason. In addition, @Matt_StableLab is part of the proposed Governance working group, which could be viewed as a conflict of interest.

I would recommend a rerun of the corrected version of the proposal, but I would also love to hear from the rest of the community on how best to move forward.