Let’s start every proposal with a goal—one that is specific to the community funding the prop—instead of trying to attach a goal to a product or service after the prop has already been drafted.



Thus far, my experience in this web3 world is that decentralization promotes individualization. And by individualization I mean that the barrier for someone to put a proposal onchain is incredibly low, which is incredibly freeing, but can also translate to a major problem:

Proposals rarely include or consider the necessity for the influence of multiple disciplines for them to achieve success for the community.

Often, when I ask for a proposal author to “define success” for their prop, they define what would make them feel accomplished or what would make the proposal itself a success, but rarely do they define success for the community that funds the prop.

I get it, defining success for the community (as in, a qualitative or quantitative measure that provides some return-of-value) is harder to do, and once you define success you’ve also defined failure.

However, as a token holder and steward of a treasury, I believe one of my greatest responsibilities is to make sure we’re getting value back from what we fund.

How does that translate to web3 props for me? A dev launching new features should have considered and planned for a UX analysis on where this feature should live in the user experience, and should have considered and planned for how to market this feature to the community and others. A content creator should have a solid plan for how we’re going to use the content to further the goals of the community.



I know, that’s a lot to ask. I know, it’s a lot more work that involves people with other skill sets, and that creates resistance in an otherwise simple and quick pathway to an individual putting something onchain.

But in this fast-moving world, we can derive a lot of value from failure and success.

What is harder to derive value from: building just to build or maintaining just to maintain without any previous agreed upon standard by which we can measure and discuss success/value.

As a co-author of a few small, funded props, I always want them to make a difference and provide value to the community. I wouldn’t want to build something that never got used or promoted or couldn’t be found on the platform.

I’ve had that experience, spending hours on delivering a proposal for a community around how they could redesign their UX (landing page, nav, etc) to make it easier for new and existing members to find things, as a means to grow the community—but because our prop didn’t include anyone who had the skills to code or access to the site, none of the recommendations were implemented.

Great, we got paid, but what we really wanted was to improve the community. Prop and learn, right?

I had a professor once who told me, “If you stay up all night the night the project is assigned, it will be infinitely better than if you wait to stay up all night the night before it is due.”

Why? Because I will have thought through what I am trying to accomplish, what value it provides, various ways to get there, who I need to help me, and how long it’s going to take. When presented with a fork in the journey, I will have already answered these core questions, and they will help me decide which way to go.

This is my call to "stay up all night" before we put props onchain. To ask ourselves the tough questions in advance and collaborate on the solutions.

I’m foresee that I'm going to vote “against” on a lot of proposals, because I’ve already been part of or witnessed DAOs that didn’t maintain focus on a healthy treasury, and I want to stay both strong in my beliefs/values, as well as be an example when I put proposals onchain.

Should I vote against an author in the future:

1. I may declare that something isn't a fit or needs work, even if I don't have the answer for it. If I do, I will say so, though it is only my responsibility to collaborate for the answer, not have the answer.

2. I'll do my best to make sure the author isn't surprised by my vote, as I will have been discussing what I find important prior to it going onchain.

3. I will do my best not to make it feel personal, though I understand that when one person (or a group) puts a proposal onchain, it can feel very vulnerable and like a public, personal litmus test on one's worth.

4. I will do my best to find ways to talk about what I feel is important for sustainability of the community, and why.

5. I will say "I love you" because, well, it's just that I believe in putting #morelove into the world, and that starts with me.

Let’s start every proposal with a goal—one that is specific to the community funding the prop—instead of trying to attach a goal to a product or service after the prop has already been drafted.



Thus far, my experience in this web3 world is that decentralization promotes individualization. And by individualization I mean that the barrier for someone to put a proposal onchain is incredibly low, which is incredibly freeing, but can also translate to a major problem:

Proposals rarely include or consider the necessity for the influence of multiple disciplines for them to achieve success for the community.

Often, when I ask for a proposal author to “define success” for their prop, they define what would make them feel accomplished or what would make the proposal itself a success, but rarely do they define success for the community that funds the prop.

I get it, defining success for the community (as in, a qualitative or quantitative measure that provides some return-of-value) is harder to do, and once you define success you’ve also defined failure.

However, as a token holder and steward of a treasury, I believe one of my greatest responsibilities is to make sure we’re getting value back from what we fund.

How does that translate to web3 props for me? A dev launching new features should have considered and planned for a UX analysis on where this feature should live in the user experience, and should have considered and planned for how to market this feature to the community and others. A content creator should have a solid plan for how we’re going to use the content to further the goals of the community.



I know, that’s a lot to ask. I know, it’s a lot more work that involves people with other skill sets, and that creates resistance in an otherwise simple and quick pathway to an individual putting something onchain.

But in this fast-moving world, we can derive a lot of value from failure and success.

What is harder to derive value from: building just to build or maintaining just to maintain without any previous agreed upon standard by which we can measure and discuss success/value.

As a co-author of a few small, funded props, I always want them to make a difference and provide value to the community. I wouldn’t want to build something that never got used or promoted or couldn’t be found on the platform.

I’ve had that experience, spending hours on delivering a proposal for a community around how they could redesign their UX (landing page, nav, etc) to make it easier for new and existing members to find things, as a means to grow the community—but because our prop didn’t include anyone who had the skills to code or access to the site, none of the recommendations were implemented.

Great, we got paid, but what we really wanted was to improve the community. Prop and learn, right?

I had a professor once who told me, “If you stay up all night the night the project is assigned, it will be infinitely better than if you wait to stay up all night the night before it is due.”

Why? Because I will have thought through what I am trying to accomplish, what value it provides, various ways to get there, who I need to help me, and how long it’s going to take. When presented with a fork in the journey, I will have already answered these core questions, and they will help me decide which way to go.

This is my call to "stay up all night" before we put props onchain. To ask ourselves the tough questions in advance and collaborate on the solutions.

I’m foresee that I'm going to vote “against” on a lot of proposals, because I’ve already been part of or witnessed DAOs that didn’t maintain focus on a healthy treasury, and I want to stay both strong in my beliefs/values, as well as be an example when I put proposals onchain.

Should I vote against an author in the future:

1. I may declare that something isn't a fit or needs work, even if I don't have the answer for it. If I do, I will say so, though it is only my responsibility to collaborate for the answer, not have the answer.

2. I'll do my best to make sure the author isn't surprised by my vote, as I will have been discussing what I find important prior to it going onchain.

3. I will do my best not to make it feel personal, though I understand that when one person (or a group) puts a proposal onchain, it can feel very vulnerable and like a public, personal litmus test on one's worth.

4. I will do my best to find ways to talk about what I feel is important for sustainability of the community, and why.

5. I will say "I love you" because, well, it's just that I believe in putting #morelove into the world, and that starts with me.