Takeaway from today's Eden Fractal meeting

in #eos2 years ago

Some questions arose in today's meeting that seems to require a governance mechanism to resolve. Fractally process is first of all a rewarding mechanism and we have only used it as such so far. I mean at least until last saturday fractally genesis meetings were only about rewarding contributions, there was no mechanism used to create proposals and make decisions. So naturally, there was some confusion as to what process we should use to make changes to our process.

Initially I thought this would not be needed since Eden is all about governance and setting direction, so I thought EdenFractal would not need to perform the same function. But it seems that it might be a good idea for EdenFractal to have a governance mechanism limited for managing the specifics of EdenFractal process.

So we probably need to agree on that. We could use interim consensus that genesis fractal has started using: https://hive.blog/fractally/@dan/genesis-fractal-branding-and-interim-group-consensus-process . Or, Felix, proposed deciding each week the questions for which each week we would submit proposals and then decide in our breakout rooms which proposals should be "elected".

Purpose of Eden Fractal

  1. What is the purpose of EdenFractal? How does it distinguish itself from genesis fractal and Eden CDs.
  2. What kind of contributions should be valued in these meetings?

Since EdenFractal is first of all a rewarding mechanism I think these two questions are equivalent (purpose of EdenFractal will define what contributions should be valued in its meetings).

The way I currently see it (subject to change), there are two categories of value for EdenFractal (two types of contributions that it should value):

  1. Contributions to EOS
  2. Contributions to fractal governance on EOS
  3. Contributions to EdenOnEOS specifically

These categories of course overlap, but we should be clear if we value all of them.

Alignment of Eden and Eden Fractal

The third category of work as defined above, could be further divided into work in the direction that CDs are setting and "other types" of work. If this fractal is indeed "Eden fractal" (if it is connected to Eden on EOS), then it would make sense to value work in the direction that CDs are setting, more. That would Eden and EdenFractal a more robust unit, and incentivize CDs to donate more of their treasury into EdenFractal.

A similar idea was thrown out to value work for things that donators suggest more. This could be means for CDs to set the direction of EdenFractal and a way for CDs to fund projects. I doubt this is a good idea. I suspect it would introduce confusion and disagreements.

If we want alignment of Eden CDs and EdenFractal, maybe the only thing we need to do is ensure that all participants of EdenFractal are Eden members. Think about it: Eden uses a consensus process to select CDs. If these CDs organize projects that they were elected to do, then the EdenFractal will naturally reward work on these same projects more than other kinds of work (simply because the group of people who elected CDs is the same group of people who decide on rewards).


Dear @sim31, we need your help!

The Hivebuzz proposal already got important support from the community. However, it lost its funding a few days ago when the HBD stabilizer proposal rose above it.

May we ask you to support it so our team can continue its work?
You can do it on Peakd, Ecency,

Hive.blog / https://wallet.hive.blog/proposals
or using HiveSigner.

All votes are helpful and yours will be much appreciated.
Thank you!