Thank-you @o_rourke for this revised proposal. The format does look to be what is needed to be accepted, however I am working to have it reviewed by a Cayman Island lawyer to ensure these structure changes to not create legal issues. I will keep everyone posted on that review.
Regarding the proposal itself, I very much appreciate that is a 180 of the original proposal. The big changes aren’t actually in this proposal, but in the fact that Grove has addressed it’s own sustainability, which was the reason we are where we are today.
Changes to PNF and the DAO
This proposal doesn’t offer substantial changes to the structure of PNF or the DAO (especially when compared to the first proposal). The changes are relatively straightforward:
-
One of the directors is now an “Executive Director”. Instead of all directors being involved in the day to day, there is now a central director who makes most of the decisions. This is a relatively simple change.
-
PNF is given full agency (instead of partial agency) when it comes to parameters and funds.
-
Director changes only happen 2 specific times a year (July and January), which essentially provides leeway to the Executive Director, who is making most of the calls, from being suddenly removed (without very specific reasoning). This ultimately removes the ability to have unexpected proposals pop up to remove directors (like the first proposal was to the past PNF Directors). If there is a removal outside of those time frames it is because of very specific reasons (like engaging in illegal activities). Ultimately PNF can operate knowing when there will be windows for restructuring.
Changes to Grove
The seismic level change is actually what Grove just underwent. When this all started, Grove was unsustainable on it’s own, with 3 months of runway in hand, with a few more months of runway expected to come in September. There was a clear need to off load costs and get more resources for runway, which was the backdrop to the first proposal.
I was not convinced that restructuring PNF and the DAO would be the right solution to addressing Grove’s unsustainability. PNF and the DAO would just be dragged into Grove’s own issues.
However, through this proposal process with the community, Grove went through the changes required to make it more sustainable. In 1 week of restructuring, it went from 3 to 6 month runway to a 1.5 year runway, and a major shift in focus. Major kudos to Grove leadership for doing this restructuring. Myself and others have been calling for Grove to be sustainable, and it would appear they are on a path towards that direction.
De-Risking
By Grove restructuring itself, and with this new proposal not shutting down the DAO and fully centralizing PNF, I personally feel there has been a lot of de-risking from the original proposal. Grove has begun to address it unsustainable runway, and the changes to PNF are more within reason… so this is objectively positive progress.
There are still risks, and there are well established patterns that leadership should address so history does not keep repeating itself. I already laid them out in detail here.
The New Choice
For me, the context of this proposal went from “How can PNF sustain Grove’s runway” to “Grove is in a stable place, so now what do we do with PNF?”. Ultimately this proposal has moderate structural changes to PNF and the DAO, but is mostly about about who you want to lead after these changes are enacted. Michael has made the case for his vision as Executive Director through this proposal and through his 90 day plan for PNF, so now it up to the DAO to decide if this is the path it wants.
I have agreed to Michael that he can add me to this proposal to remain on as a Director. I can continue with my current responsibilities and keep things moving, while also work with Michael as the Executive Director, who has most decision making powers. This new position of Executive Director puts all vision under them and their judgement, which is why it is critical that the DAO know they are voting in Michael as Executive Director. The role of non-executive director, like myself, is to provide a level of oversight and provide a vote in the few instance that require it.
I’d like to keep comms open between PNF and the community, to help contribute to leadership transparency. I have never agreed that POKT’s issues were because of PNF or the DAO, as the original proposal suggested, so I’d like to preserve as much good form their designs as possible. I personally would like to see PNF and the DAO grow in progressive decentralization.