ETH to Dollar Conversion Policy Prop 70

1

Concerning Prop Builder Payments we have recently discussed giving the proposer the option of converting ETH into a stable coin if they require payment in fiat or have fiat expenses. This is especially important when we have a milestone based payment structure. This was first implemented in Prop 73.

Concerning Props 56 & 70 the DAO did not provide clear options that would allow the Proposer to choose how the milestone payments were held while also enforcing milestone based payment. In a sense they were forced to take the market risk without clear guidance on possible options.

We approached this Prop with the idea that we would pay slightly above fair market value, 60K, to produce 6 cc0 story bibles.

Four of the five teams teams have begun submitting rough drafts, let’s give the the choice of how to proceed at todays valuation.

TL:DR we need an additional ~38 ETH

Agreement:
$60,000 (20 ETH) to create cc0 Story Bibles.
$18,000 (6 ETH) paid upon start May 2, 2022
$6,800 (4ETH) paid to Person, Place, Things June 8, 2022

Balance in Gnosis: $127,700 now converted to USDC

Due to Creators:
$42,000 is the balance due to 3 of 4 teams.
$35,200 is due to Sam Ellis & Jason Schwarts / Person, Place, Thing Studios
$161,200 = Total Due to 4 Teams
Need Roughly ~40 ETH* (will send any ETH back after conversion to USDC)

*This Prop was designed for 6 teams, 1 of which was to be chosen from submissions. Another team, StudioDAO, ran into some issues with the creators and have agreed to bow out. We also had 10 ETH for legal which we won’t need as everyone left has agreed to CC0 for everything. We can re-route these funds to the remaining 4 teams.

2 Likes
2

Always appreciate your work around a wide range of props @joshuafisher so please don’t take the below as criticism but rather request for a bit of more clarity.

Are you saying here that there was a reason the DAO’s form of payment prevented the Proposer (which is you here I believe) from converting the 148 ETH delivered in whole after the prop was executed to USDC when it was received?

Or are you saying that the Proposer had set up ETH-denominated milestone payments with the creative teams such that in turn they were forced to hold ETH?

If there was a DAO created reason that the funding had had to be held in ETH while the costs were clearly USD denominated, I think it makes sense for the DAO to help remedy the consequences of that forced market risk. But if it wasn’t, I’m not as sure given that ETH price volatility was a fairly known issue for proposers.

3

Thanks for the kind words, always fun Nouning around.

At the time the DAO had not converted any ETH for Props with Gnosis Safe held milestone funding and although I had a theoretically understanding of the risk I wasn’t aware of best practices to mitigate them or the desire for the DAO to take a particular action. I certainly wasn’t comfortable making that assumption or action on my own.

Yes. That is how these Props (70 here but also 56 which Noun22 asked for some more details from Klim on but is coming down the road) were set up. I would say that myself and the people in the Proposals are still relatively new to the space and didn’t understand the right processes to take mitigate the risk and there was no clear policy from the DAO on exactly what to do.

I will take a significant part of the blame (myself representing the DAO in this case) and hope that through this process and public hashing out of the details we can move fwd with clarity and that something like this never happens again as we now have a clear precedent set from Prop 73 and this debacle.

Hope this helps and happy to answer any additional questions.