GOC-0003 DAO Committees

1. Meta Data

Original Author(s): Oliver Zerhusen (ozerhusen@gmail.com)
Creation Date: 05/08/2022
Stage: Live
Live Date: 06/27/2022

Last Version: 1.01
Last Version Date: 06/27/2022
Last Version Author(s): Oliver Zerhusen (ozerhusen@gmail.com)

Organization: DAO
Tag(s): Coordinape, DAOHaus, Discord, Financials, Governance, Procedure

Version GitHub Commit-Hash Comment
1.00 4e53794200ffa1e6bd3c2d0027ae317f1b9f5291 Current DAO-approved version
1.01 254b0b7a4f9b0b5899df5489333963e52faab3d8 Meta Data update

2. Summary

This GOC describes the detailed scope of engagement for all compensation-eligible committees within the DAO, along with general procedural guidelines.

3. Motivation

DAO Committees are a central part of the DAO helping to execute its mission. This GOC provides necessary clarity on what defines a DAO Committee and how DAO members can engage in them. It also describes the framework for how DAO Committees are funded.

4. Specification

4.1. DAO Committee Definition

A DAO Committee is a body within the DAO that is committed to contributing to the DAO’s mission and which is eligible to be allocated compensation budgets to reward its members for their contributions. A new DAO Committee is required to be approved by the DAO via a Signal Proposal in DAOHaus and should consist of at least five active members at initialization.

DAO members are free to form new teams or working groups to accomplish various assignments outside of DAO Committees that are not compensation-eligible. That approach may be a reasonable path to demonstrate to the DAO the need for a new future DAO Committee, in case the output of such efforts substantiates it.

4.2. Joining a DAO Committee

The acceptance of a new DAO Committee member is formally recognized in Coordinape. In order to join a DAO Committee, a DAO member should approach any existing DAO Committee member with a request to be nominated in Coordinape. If the existing DAO Committee member agrees, then that committee member’s act of nominating the non-committee DAO member demonstrates support. Following the nomination, a different DAO Committee member is then required to sponsor that vouch request in order for the DAO member to be accepted as a new DAO Committee member. Summed up, it requires two existing DAO Committee members to show support. The new DAO Committee member shall subsequently be set up with all required permissions and access required for that specific DAO Committee.

4.3. Engaging in DAO Committees

DAO Committees have no assigned leadership. Committee members are encouraged to step up on assignments they feel strongly about engaging in. This form of situational leadership aims to provide opportunities for all Committee members to contribute in ways that excite them the most.

DAO Committees should aim for regular meeting cadences, once a week is recommended. Committees should strive to hold their regular meetings in public to showcase transparently how the DAO operates and to stimulate interest in the broader community to join the DAO.

DAO Committees may have a broad scope of engagement as well as deep workloads to handle. Committees should therefore take into consideration creating teams or working groups that handle specific assignments or recurring activities within the DAO Committee. Therefore, DAO Committees don’t need to handle all tasks as one group, but may benefit from delegating tasks to one or more individuals within a Committee. Subsequently, Committee members are not required to engage in all tasks that are handled by a DAO Committee.

The DAO should always observe how efficiently DAO Committees operate. If a Committee’s scope grows too large (along with its membership count), then considerations for breaking up the Committee into separate ones may help to improve effectiveness of the DAO operations overall. Smaller Committees generally operate more efficiently than larger ones.

4.4. Off-chain voting

DAO Committees come across numerous situations where decisions need to be made. A future GOC shall describe approval parameters for each DAO Committee specifying thresholds below which DAO Committees are authorized to make decisions directly (vs. DAOHaus proposal). DAO Committees shall determine how to arrive at decisions. Off-chain voting shall be generally considered for significant matters concerning all DAO Committee members. The Discourse Forum may serve as the primary platform for conducting off-chain committee voting.

DAO Committees shall also consider efficiency when making minor decisions. Not all decisions require formal off-chain voting and rough consensus models can help moving things along more quickly. Nonetheless, DAO Committees should strive for transparency of how decisions have been made.

4.5. Leaving a DAO Committee

Being part of a DAO Committee means that participating DAO members are committed to actively contribute. Every DAO Committee member is free to leave at any time, at which point that member shall be removed from Coordinape immediately, along with removals for access and permissions in other systems and platforms.

Everyone is invited to engage at their own terms, there is no hourly requirement per se. However, it is not acceptable for DAO Committee members to not show up or not actually contribute to the Committee tasks at all. Passively attending meetings does not qualify as contribution. A DAO Committee member who is absent for the vast majority of an epoch will not have gained a comprehensive understanding of other Committee members’ contribution values, which should be a key input in distributing GIVE tokens in Coordinape and which determines compensation levels of other DAO Committee members. Active DAO Committee members may therefore be at risk of inequitable compensation payouts due to incremental efforts being unrecognized (especially if an absent Committee member fails to distribute any/most GIVE in an epoch, which reduces overall compensation levels for everyone).

Therefore, any DAO Committee member may request removal of another DAO Committee member before or after the end of an epoch via off-chain voting. Such a proposal shall be approved when a two-third majority of the DAO Committee votes are in favor of it (based on Coordinape circle membership). In case of approval, the DAO Committee member shall then be removed from Coordinape prior to the end of that epoch.

4.6. DAO Committee Budgets

Each DAO Committee produces quarterly budgets which shall include line item level details for the following:

  • Committee Compensation
  • Grants
  • Expenses (reimbursements, software costs, etc)

All DAO Committees should prepare their budget by mid-quarter (for the upcoming quarter) and the Ops Committee shall aggregate them into an overall DAO budget. Reviews and discussions should aim to gain rough consensus. The upcoming aggregated quarterly DAO budget should then be approved via Signal Proposal in DAOHaus, targeted to be submitted no later than the 1st of the last month of the current quarter.

The quarterly DAO budget shall subsequently be submitted to The Graph Council as a request for funding of the upcoming quarter. The DAO shall produce underpinning justification for the budget to The Graph Council. That may come in the form of presenting DAO performance statistics, grant successes, goals, etc. Each DAO Committee shall contribute to help create that documentation for their own part of the budget, and be prepared to present it to The Graph Council.

At the end of a calendar year, the DAO shall also produce an annual budget for the upcoming year. The annual budget shall serve as strong guidance for the DAO Committees when submitting their quarterly budgets in the upcoming year. The approval of the annual budget shall follow the same steps as it is described for quarterly budgets.

5. References

5.1. Links


If we do not want to require a minimum number of hours, it may be advantageous to add a recommended minimum number of hours to dedicate to each committee. With 1 hour of committee meetings each week, plus any team meetings, plus actually doing the work discussed in the meetings, I would recommend a minimum of 4 hours per week for each committee joined. This will help people understand the commitment level we are looking for in a quantifiable way.


I consider that the essence of the DAO is to participate in governance but it should not be required as a condition to have a minimum weekly schedule in each committee, only to participate in the general meetings on each committee.
The way in which we (as a members) compensate for participation in each committee is through Coordinape and I consider that is an mandatory condition. I think that imposing a minimum number of hours would imply two conditions that may be excesive.

In regards to the participation aspect, I think we can utilize the opt-in or opt-out function in coordinape as a single as to the circle members intended participation for the epoch.

As an example, this month I am not going to be quite as involved and I have thus opted out of receiving GIVE, but I intend to still be able to keep tabs on activity and would like to appropriate GIVE.


I think it will be not easy to track the minimum amount of hours that a committee member needs to provide, unless having someone tracking the time of DAO members, but seems to me that then we would transition then to a classical corporation mindset and not pursuing the web3 ethos.

I think people that are into the DAO are the best members that already showed a high level of passion and engagement. Quoting @DataNexus I think we can utilize the opt-in/opt-out function in Coordinape and let any DAO members to decide for themselves. I fully trust everyone’s own judgement.


Again this suggestion is not meant to be a requirement but more so a recommendation in order to give a baseline of the minimum number of hours it typically takes to contribute to a committee in a productive way and opt-in on coordinate for that epoch.


Thanks all for the insights thus far! I completely agree with what @pdiomede said about time tracking feeling much more like a classical organization than a DAO.

However, I think we should remember that Advocates do already have minimum requirements and don’t receive financial rewards for their work. So us implementing a system where Advocates have minimum requirements and DAO members don’t also starts to mimic the unbalanced power dynamics seen in traditional organizations. To uphold the web3 ethos, I think it’s VERY important for us DAO members to model what we are asking of the Advocates.

With all of that said and with all of the legitimate concerns with tracking hours already expressed in the thread, what if DAO membership in each committee had a minimum expectation just like Advocate roles do?

Example: An Advocate Committee member needs to review x amount of applications and attend x amount of meetings per month, and join x amount of task teams per quarter.

This could also help new DAO members have a more refined sense of what is required for joining the DAO and any committee within it before committing.


This proposal has been posted in DAOHaus for voting. I have updated the commit-hash and stage (to Candidate) in the OP. The original proposal in the OP has been submitted as-is, as there seems to have been fairly broad consensus on it.

If approved, future updates and enhancements to the GOC can be submitted as new version update proposals. Here the link to DAOHaus: GOC-003


The DAO has approved this GOC with a 15-0 vote in favor. The GOC has been processed on-chain in DAOHaus and is ratified effective immediately as of today.