My fellow Taco DAO members, a good day to you.

It has been a while since we’ve had bountied discussions, let’s see if we can get some good ones going again. The core team has agreed to pool a total of 15,000 $TACO to commit as rewards, which will be split across 5 separate discussions. The first discussion will be attached to this proposal, and I am open to suggestions for other topics.

CONTEXT

This discussion will focus on the "Decentralized Due Diligence/DDD" roadmap item. We may or may not pursue this roadmap item, I will write as if we will.

Before I prompt the discussion’s topic, I need to describe DDD’s purpose and design, please bear with me.

Currently, the DAO’s due diligence efforts have consisted of the core team writing reports, and the DAO’s members being invited to discuss them. This is lacking in some ways:

• The reports do not score projects, they only inform and analyse

• They haven't been updated for a while

• The discussions are open-ended, and therefore unorganised

DDD will serve to address these shortcomings and more. It will do this by:

• Enabling DAO members to score projects across different areas

• Enabling DAO members to provide reasoning posts alongside their scores

• Producing overall project ratings based on a DAO-centric method

DDD’s SCORING DESIGN

The DAO’s first task upon the launch of DDD will be to define different areas across which to review projects.

For instance, we could have the following set: "Team", "Token Utility", "Execution", "Vision", "Community", "Sustainability". These are only examples, not proposed options.

The areas the DAO selects will all be added to the "Area Importance" voting interface. That’s the best name I could come up with for now. Similar to our portfolio voting, it will be a constant-sum allocation voting interface. Within it, we will determine how much each individual area matters compared to all other areas. Members can assign percentages to each area, for example, "Vision" could be given the highest percentage - if a member believes that the project’s vision is the most important area to judge it on. All allocation votes here will be aggregated according to voting power to form the DAO’s "Area Importance" weightings, which will be updated fluidly as votes and voting power change. The purpose of these weightings will be elucidated after the next paragraph.

Selected areas will also be added as "Score Voting" interfaces to each project whitelisted for due diligence. Members will be able to vote a score from 1 (pessimal) to 100 (ideal) on each area for each project. These votes will be aggregated according to voting power to determine a project’s score on each area, which will be updated fluidly as votes and voting power change.

To obtain the project's overall rating, area scores will be combined into a weighted average, with each area weighted by its "Area Importance" weighting, producing a single overall score from 1 to 100. This, too, will be updated fluidly as area scores and area importance weightings change.

Put simply:

1. we pick different areas to judge projects on

2. we decide how important those areas are among themselves

3. we score projects on each area

4. scores from 3 get aggregated according to 2 to get each project's overall rating

Would this give quality signals of quality? idk, but it is in spirit with everything else we’ve done.

DDD FORUM

Members will be able to post the reasoning behind the scores they vote. Posts can be upvoted/downvoted with voting power, and threads can be created. The DDD forum might fare better in being a knowledge base than the core team’s reports, as the whole DAO will be able to contribute to it. "Questions to the team" sections can be added to DDD pages, where only verified team members can reply to posts.

If the forum has good activity, then projects may find it desirable to pay a whitelist fee to receive DDD. Additionally, projects could fund reward pools for reasoning posts, which would provide members with the incentive to give scores and write posts. Post quality could be encouraged if rewards are only distributed to highly upvoted posts. Upvoting itself could be encouraged with a small reward. Reward pools could be topped up whenever, so if a project has made progress, it could incentivize members to revisit it and write of its progress, keeping the DDD forum's takes up to date.

WHAT SHOULD THE AREAS BE?

I invite participants to propose and discuss which areas we should score projects upon. How do we neatly separate the different angles from which to judge. How do we define them, so that we have the correct prompt for the reasoning posts.

Some areas could be excluded for certain holdings in the portfolio. For example, I don’t think a "Team" area would be applicable to BTC. Perhaps, we need a project-DDD-area-set, separate from an asset-DDD-area-set.

Worth considering that the DAO may eventually gain access to tokenized stocks.

While coming up with the areas is the focus, discussing the topic of DDD broadly is also encouraged. Poke at the design, re-name components, express your excitement (once again, this may or may not get built).

BOUNTY DETAILS

Join the discussion by posting under this proposal using Taco forum (https://tacodao.com/chat/forum/452) or Sneedhub, a post on either is uploaded to both.

If you already have voting power hotkeyed to the Taco dApp (for portfolio voting), it will be a bit quicker to upvote posts from there than having to hotkey your voting power to SneedHub. But the Taco forum doesn't render paragraph breaks yet, so the posts read better on SneedHub. Read on SneedHub, upvote from tacodao, if you will.

The 3000 $TACO reward pool will be distributed between the top 5 upvoted posts as follows:

1st: 1000 TACO 2nd: 800 TACO 3rd: 600 TACO 4th: 400 TACO 5th: 200 TACO

Rankings will be identified and rewards distributed in ~ 8 days. Rewards will hit your wallet on the Taco dApp or Sneedhub, depending on which you use to post, don’t type a PID.

Get creative! :)

This proposal was created using https://ic-toolkit.app

Motion Proposal:

Motion Text:

deedeedee