Permit Working Group Budgets To Be Based On A Term of 1 Year.
PROPOSAL CATEGORY:
Process.
ABSTRACT:
AIP 246 established the following for Working Group Budgets,
Funding Window: The final 15 days of February and August each calendar year in which Working Group Leads propose Working Group Budget Proposals.
This proposal eliminates the requirement for Working Groups to develop budgets and request funding every six months. Instead, it allows Working Groups to budget for a full year.
BENEFIT TO APECOIN ECOSYSTEM:
Longevity: This provides Working Groups with a stronger time frame to develop long-term relationships, execute ideas, and deliver value over an extended period.
STEPS TO IMPLEMENT & TIMELINE:
Upon approval, Working Groups will be able to develop an annual budget and will only need to request funding once per year.
The proposal to permit working group budgets to be based on a one-year term brings up an interesting point of discussion. On one hand, extending the budget period from six months to a full year can provide working groups with a stronger timeframe to develop long-term relationships, execute ideas, and deliver value over an extended period. This longer timeframe can potentially reduce interruptions in the flow of work and allow for more comprehensive planning and execution.
However, it’s essential to consider the potential drawbacks of this approach as well. While a one-year budget term provides more stability, it may also limit the flexibility to adjust budgets based on changing circumstances or evolving project requirements. Additionally, certain strategic initiatives may require a longer timeline to generate meaningful results, and a one-year budget term may not adequately accommodate these endeavors.
Therefore, it might be worth considering a more flexible approach that allows working groups to select the budget term based on the nature and objectives of their specific projects. This could enable shorter-term projects to have a more focused and agile budget allocation while granting longer-term initiatives the necessary resources and support.
Ultimately, striking the right balance between stability and flexibility is crucial for the success of working group budgets. By carefully considering the unique characteristics of each project and offering options for different budget terms, we can ensure that working groups have the necessary resources to drive innovation and deliver value to the ApeCoin ecosystem.
I think this is too soon. I understand why it’s suggested, I just feel it’s hard enough to get 6 months’ monies approved, so to try and now get a yearly budget approved in the current climate, also coupled with no new catalysts for $ape etc etc you are really gonna set the WGs up to fail by having no budget approved at all.
6 months is a short period of time I agree, but they prove their worth, perhaps also wait for market conditions to get better & bullish sentiment to return etc etc then try for yearly budget approvals as hopefully people will be more receptive.
Thank you for your input. I think a solution to this may be that Working Groups be allowed to submit budget revisions, with explanations as to why they need to be revised.
There is no guarantee that a six month budget would be approved. I think a well thought out annual budget with direct line items, and appropriate spending forecasts, would set the Working Group up for success.
As it stands now, they would need to come up with a six month budget, that gets approved, and dispersed in about two months, leaving them with four months to spend.
I feel like that is setting any Working Group up for failure. I think requesting an annual budget is fair.
Thanks for sharing this idea @LOR3LORD! Definitely very interesting & @bigbull 's point about being able to think more long-term makes sense.
However, I’ve noticed in my experience with DAOs generally, new initiatives tend to not pass with a budget funding period longer than 6 months. Generally, with something new and unproven, DAOs prefer to see a shorter funding “trial” period of sorts, then when that initiative has proven itself successful, DAO members tend to become more receptive to year-long budget proposals. To date, it looks like this is the case for ApeCoin DAO as well.
Thus, I think while this may be a good idea for proven Working Groups such as the Governance WG, for newer WGs such as MarComms or Metaverse it may be more difficult & add to the challenges of getting a budget passed. Would be curious to hear the thoughts of our current Working Group Stewards on this, as well as those of the future Stewards who are soon to be elected!
Agreed on the clear metrics and KPI’s. I feel like 6 month budgets put Working Groups intno a frenzy to spend money in ways they may not have done otherwise if they were not under time constraints.
This is valuable input. I understand what has been the norm, but I think this needs to change.
I believe it needs to change to give Working Groups a fair shot at achieving long term visions, and reaching their goals within a reasonable time frame. It takes time to field out ideas, develop relationships, and to put things in motion.
I understand that in most DAO’s six months is the norm. However, the rest of the world operates on annual budgets.
I believe if this AIP were passed, it would demonstrate voter approval for an annual budget, therefore providing confidence that future annual budgets would pass.
