Meeting #4, 14th April 2022

Meeting recording

Minutes of Catalyst Circle v3 Meeting #4

Present (in order of first speaking)

Bullish Dumpling (representing Cardano Foundation); Nori Nishigaya (facilitator); Dimitri Fernando (General ADA Holders); Harris Warren (IOG); ); Nadia Hopkins (Community Advisors); Joey Chessher (Toolmakers and Maintainers); Mercy A (Funded Proposers); Rhys Morgan (stakepool operators); JP (secretary).

Speaker percentages

Harris (22%), Nadia (19%), Nori (18%), Rhys (9%), Dumpling (9%), Joey (8%), Mercy (8%), Dimitri (7%), JP (<1%)

Abbreviations used/Glossary

API – Application Programming Interface (a software intermediary that allows two applications to talk to each other)

ATH – After Townhall, breakout rooms after the regular Wednesday TownHall meeting

CA – Community Advisor, a role open to anyone in Catalyst, to assess proposals in each funding round

CC – Catalyst Circle

CF – Cardano Foundation

CTC, Catalyst Technical Council, a proposed body that will be appointed by IOG to be involved in bicameral governance alongside the Catalyst community.

Catalyst School – https://thecatalyst.school

d-Rep – delegation representative, a proposed new role; people to whom a voter will be able to delegate their voting power. See the registration form

DID – Decentralised identifiers

ETH – Eastern Town Hall

Gimbalabs - https://gimbalabs.com/gimbalgrid

IOG – Input/Output Global

NFT – non-fungible token

QA-DAO – Quality Assurance Distributed Autonomous Organisation

SPO – stakepool operator

VCA – Veteran Community Advisor, a Catalyst role open to those who have been a CA in previous rounds, to assess the CAs’ reviews

Voltaire – the next phase on the Cardano roadmap to decentralisation

1. Opening, agenda (0:00)

Check-in (0:11) Announcements (4:41) – none Agenda and align expectations (4:52) – no items added.

2. Circle stand-up (6:44)

Nori (6:44) Circle Stand-up has been slightly changed based on feedback from Audit Circle and QA-DAO: each Circle member in turn should say:

  • Reporting: what you have worked on since last meeting, and what issues were brought up by the community you represent (so not just about your own perspective). Also for transparency, report any decisions made outside meetings, e.g. in Slack, since the last meeting.

  • Enabling: anything blocking you, anything you need help with

  • Intention: what you and your community will be working on in the next 2 weeks.

Relate your comments to the cards on the Prioritised Problems GitHub board.

Unassigned cards (8:18)

Card on " Professional Consideration of CCv3 Roles"

Nori 13:34 Question raised by Audit Circle – we need clarity on status of Professional Consideration of CCv3 roles and time spent on work. Its status is currently showing as integrated/accepted, which means Circle has accepted that it is an issue, and agreed to the solution shown. But is that the case? The status of a card should reflect the opinion of the Circle as a whole, not any individual person; so should it be “cancelled” “rejected”? Harris (14:43) Originally the card was about how to appropriately reward Circle members, but then it turned into a proposal submitted by Dimitri. Nori (15:28) The card says that CCv3 members should be paid more, and retroactively; and there was disagreement in Circle on that. So is it officially accepted/integrated by Circle? Or is it only an individual proposal, and rejected as a Circle issue? Nadia (16:29) We could reject this card, but create a new card and discuss the issue of Circle members’ future pay, independently of this proposal and independently of retroactive funding. Nori (17:52) Formal vote – unanimous to move this card to Rejected.

Mercy (18:52)

Harris (24:54)

Dimitri (29:00)

  • I’ve been in various Twitter groups, correcting misconceptions, explaining that Circle reps don’t have decision making power and don’t get preferential treatment on funding. Also worked with Nadia on Monday on developing Circle code of conduct.

  • On anti-scammers initiative on social media, we should discuss it as Circle; I am not aware what progress has been made previously.

  • On Nurturing a listening culture, no change since last meeting; I noted down my own feelings on it, but we need to discuss it as a group.

ACTION ITEM: Dimitri, Joey and Rhys to form a working party to progress Nurturing a listening culture

Nadia (32:42)

  • Met with Tevo and Stephen to discuss the Prioritised Problems process. A helpful rubric on how to frame a problem; I've used it to add a new problem to the board, CA/vCA Community Needs to Prioritize and Solve F8 Sensed Issues for Fund 9 – this comprises c. 33 issues; the sensing of them is done, and I’ve gone through the other 3 questions in the rubric for them as a group: - Why is solving this problem important to the mission of Project Catalyst? - Can you articulate the gap between the current state and the expected or envisioned state? - How might the value of solving this problem be quantified and/or measured?

  • The CA/VCA group communications team has been creating a process to work on these 33 issues; this will be a model for how problems could be solved (see later agenda item).

  • I added the problem proposer group and the proposal process itself lack official representation for issue solving. Mercy brought it up; we held an After Town Hall on Fund 8 process, and will hold another one this week. It raises a wider issue of who should become the owner of issues related to the proposing process, and should there be a representative?

Harris (36:44) Are you involving Challenge Teams in this? because ultimately some oversight of proposer issues could be done by them. Nadia (37:03) We have brought everyone together in an After Town Hall, but if some of the issues should be addressed by challenge teams, that's feasible.

Joey (39:34)

  • On Review and revise the prioritised problems workflow – we had some discussions; Nadia’s meeting on Monday came up with a method but nothing is finally resolved.

  • On Systems to track trust and participation, I have yet to meet with people who are trying to create a token for trust. And on the other problems I own, I haven’t had a chance to do anything on them; some of them are still just community ideas, there are no projects going on underneath them.

  • On Lack of onboarding systems, I attended a Town Hall yesterday with George Lovegrove; they have a fund 8 proposal for some infrastructure analysis, which might lead to something that will address this card.

ACTION ITEM: Joey to meet with George Lovegrove to find out more.

Dumpling (41:53)

  • I only have one card, the communications gap. I met with Jeremy and Alex from CF, and with a new partnership manager at CF to hear how I could assist him in connecting with the community. What has the community brought up – see later agenda item in this meeting, but briefly I see a new area of work to help with the community and CF. I have made no decisions outside meetings.

  • Future – I would like to work on the consent agenda.

  • Blockers – waiting for this meeting, to discuss issues I’ve put on this agenda.

Rhys (43:41)

  • On Involve SPOs in Catalyst projects – largely finished this work.

  • On Lack of permanent Miscellaneous challenge, I’m talking to some SPOs to figure out what would be an appropriate challenge setting for SPOs; ideally only one, to avoid confusion.

  • On Nurturing a listening culture , in my opinion that is what Circle is for overall.

  • On Systems to track trust and participation – I spoke to people involved in Atala PRISM to see if there is an easy-to-implement solution – there is, of course, but I also have recently seen Lido’s tools and he already has a tracking system in place so I plan to talk to him, and then to work with Joey on this ticket to create a system to track trust within Catalyst.

  • On Lack of onboarding structures I met with Catalyst School, and also am working with Tevo on how we could create a central hub for onboarding; to create a plan and a scope of works.

  • On the discussion last meeting about misinformation about Circle’s role: I have found that people are hearing information from people who have very little to do with Catalyst, and this is where information is getting blown out of proportion. I’ve had to join Twitter Spaces and interrupt conversations to correct misinterpretations, particularly accusations that Circle has somehow been trying to push Dimitri out; we haven’t, and Dimitri himself has said he does not think we have. But there has been miscommunication, which I think we should address sooner rather than later.

  • Future – will meet with Joey and Dimitri to move forward on Nurturing a listening culture. By next meeting, I should be able to present my work on Lack of onboarding structures. Will hold a breakout room at next After Town Hall for SPO issues.

  • No blockers. Nori (49:14) Question on status of the card Involve SPOs in Catalyst projects ACTION ITEM: Rhys to format the card for Involve SPOs in Catalyst projects using the new rubric, and fill in data on actions taken and outcomes, prior to closing the card in the next meeting.

CCv4 Elections Process

Harris (53:10) I have added a card for Define the process for CCv4 elections. – we do have some time, but need to start thinking about it soon. There was an intent that we have each seat as a challenge setting, and have a vote as though each individual standing for election is a proposal in that challenge. ACTON ITEM: Harris to add this as an agenda item for a future meeting.

3. Consent agenda (56:13)

Clarification on budget for fund 9 being in ADA (Mercy) (56:57)

  • Mercy (56:57) Last week Kriss Baird gave a Town Hall presentation on what Fund 9 will look like; it said the total budget will be $16m or 16m ADA, whichever is smaller. There is some confusion in the community on what that means in practice.

  • Harris (58:14) The concept is that the budget will be 16m ADA. Because ADA fluctuates, this could impact the community. If ADA value goes up, then the fund budget could be more than $16m; so the idea is that we cap the amount that would be budgeted towards Fund 9 at $16m dollars. If the value of ADA falls, then there could be less than $16m dollars available. We are asking that proposals are still submitted in USD. The potential impact is that is the value of ADA falls dramatically, then fewer proposals would receive funding. But if the value goes up, we will still retain the cap of $16m USD,and any surpuls would function as a “slush fund” that would be used for future adjustments, to compensate for any later fall in value. If there is a dramatic swing, the intention is that we would investigate whether it was possible to make additional Treasury requests to get additional funds. The intention is that proposers will submit budgets in USD, and will receive funding in the ADA equivalent at the time of a translation.

  • (1:01:11) Ultimately the aim is to create some sort of stablecoin or stable environment; but for now, we want to increase our responsibility in the Treasury by placing a cap, to allow us to slow down a little and not double in size. We are also aiming to build in more time in starting the next Fund, to ensure our systems and processes are in place.

  • Joey (1:02:52) Say I am a funded proposer, and I have $1,000 in my budget for marketing, and 1 ADA was $1 when I submitted my proposal. If ADA goes up to $1.25, then I still get $1,000. But if ADA falls to 50 cents, do I still get $1,000 worth of ADA for my marketing, or do I get less?

  • Harris (1:03:25) You would still get the $1,000 as a funded proposer. There are a couple of points of conversion. We will start with ADA as the original denomination; we still want to honour your $1,000 request. So at the time of funding, there is a conversion that says “At this time, $1,000 equals this much ADA” – and that’s the amount you would receive. It can be confusing, because it is in ADA when we send it to you, and you can convert it into dollars if you choose, or you can leave it in ADA. We would like us all to be thinking in ADA at some point soon – but we know there is a dependency, and proposers are budgeting in dollars, so we want to ensure proposers gat the amount they budgeted for; so it’s important that we are not throwing that wild adjustment in your lap.

  • Mercy (1:05:21) I think the issue is when the points of conversion are, and how many there are – can we get more clarity on that? At the moment, what I am hearing is that one major point of conversion is when the voting is done for Fund 9 and monies need to be disbursed. So if at that point, if the value of ADA is low then fewer projects will be funded?

  • Harris (1:06:30) Correct. And since we are receiving from the Treasury in ADA now, there is no point of conversion there, and that makes it dependable and understandable how much of the Treasury is being allocated for the purpose of Catalyst.

  • Nori (1:10:39) I understand the desire still to make the proposers whole in the US budget amounts, even when payments are in separate tranches. However, if that is the case, and the price of ADA goes down versus the US dollar over time, then the amount of total ADA that needs to be paid out at each of those transfers will go up, which could exceed the 16 million cap - so how is that situation handled? Because it would require more ADA than the 16 million ADA cap if the value of ADA keeps going down.

  • Harris (1:11:24) That’s true. There will be some fluctuation. But if it initially goes up (and we hope it will), the value will be higher but we’ll still cap at 16m, and that will provide a buffer to cover any shortfall if it falls again. We are open to making adjustments if things swing dramatically – we are just trying to cap the amount of ADA that’s distributed for this. We know it’s not a perfect situation, but we want to bring more predictability and responsibility in use of Treasury funds, because dramatic changes can swing the other way and make it so there’s a lot more need in the Treasury.

  • Nori (1:12:46) For clarity – is the risk on the Treasury, and not on the proposers, if prices go the wrong way?

  • Harris (1:12:56) Mostly on the Treasury. The main impact on proposers is that it may reduce the number of proposals that get through.

  • Joey (1:13:20) Is there a way to stabilise the price of ADA over a whole fund? The response I’ve had is we hope the price is going to go up; but we can’t count on that.

  • Harris (1:13:56) In the future we’re optimistic about stablecoins being part of the equation, because that would eliminate a lot of the risk; but we are not sure of the timing.

Cardano Foundation update (Dumpling, 1:17:37)

Twitter Space with Frederik Gregaard last week covered his views on Voltaire and CF’s involvement in Circle. 3 salient points:

  • Voltaire is more than democracy, it's a chance to have a voice and a vote [Summariser's note: almost certainly some error in the recording here, since democracy is precisely "the chance to have a voice", so it's unlikely that Gregaard called this "more than democracy"]. I think this is well said and we need to cherish this opportunity, because it is a privilege and a responsibility.

  • CF’s future plans on involvement in Catalyst – they plan to get more involved in voting on Challenge Settings, but have no plans to vote on proposals.

  • On the need for a CF rep in Circle – we currently have one because we are still exploring what this rep can do; but we may not need to have one in future.

How CCv3 can help CF – CF are not clear how they could be involved with Circle; so it’s up to us to brainstorm. DM me your ideas. My own idea is about the CF Ambassadors’ programme. I hear many people are unhappy because the selection criteria to become an Ambassador are strange. There are people who would like recognition for their work – it’s not about the money for them - but are rejected as Ambassadors. So as CF rep, I hope to design another way to recognise such people, without trying to change CF’s existing standards on who can be an Ambassador.

My future Twitter Spaces – 21st April, with funded proposers sharing their experience of writing proposals that were funded. 26th April, 3pm UTC, an important space for CCv3 to tell the community what we do, and to se the record straight. All CCv3 members invited to attend

Code of Conduct - Harris (1:26:25)

We tried unsuccessfully to coordinate a time to discuss it. Nadia put together a document. What are the next steps?

We need to seed some of the concepts of what we want to see in a Code of Conduct, based on the issues we have seen.

We need to set clear rules for how Circle members, sub-circle members, and Admin team should behave, and then get buy-in from the community on it. Meet asynchronously, contribute to a shared doc, then bring that to a Town Hall discussion?

  • Rhys (1:29:21) Let's use the card on the Problems board, and create a document where we collate ideas. (Discussion of whether the document should be viewable by the community)

  • Harris (1:31:13) Joey has already contributed an initial document

  • Nadia (1:31:50) We discussed having a Catalyst code of conduct *and* a Circle one, which would include everything that is in the Catalyst one, and more. I feel strongly that this should be a community-designed document that we help to frame. Key questions are, where are the boundaries, what is considered a conduct transgression, and how do people raise issues? And how do we prevent it becoming a set of rules; it needs to be broad enough that people can contribute, but it should prevent people coming to harm.

  • Harris (1:34:34) Agree, we need to frame what is right and what is wrong, and give clear definitions for the community. And I think the Catalyst community code is parallel, but we need to decide if we want to tackle that bigger piece first, or the Circle code? I think we need to get it done quickly.

  • Joey (1:35:29) We should see it as a living document, but if you comment, date the comment so we have version control.

  • Dimitri (1:36:32) Nadia and I also made a separate start on a document that can be used as a starting point. I think the Catalyst code of conduct and the Circle one should evolve at the same time; and all members of the community should be able to comment. And not only in Wednesday Town Hall, but in other Town Halls over several weeks. Nadia and I also discussed that it should not be done in a rush.

  • Harris (1:37:45) Sounds like we all want to move swiftly and asynchronously.

ACTION ITEM: All contribute asynchronously to a framing document , and have a meeting on Thursday 21st; then bring something to After Town Hall when we are ready.

Overview of Communication/Subcircle Formation Framework (Nadia, 1:43:19)

  • CA/VCA group has an extensive list of issues to be solved, and are going to try out a framework for communication which we have developed over 2 months which I want to share.

  • We have a Discord server, and are using tools including DeWork which sync together so we can populate our GitHub repo. We are going to launch it (see slides). And we will form a subcircle to look at and prioritise this list of issues to be solved, and also take those priorities to the community so they can form other subcircles. So if any of you have people in your groups who is interested in being involved in solving these issues, please direct them to our group.

Circle Involvement in F8 Process Improvement (Nadia, 1:45:49)

  • Mercy and I held an After Town Hall on Fund 8 process improvement and strategic planning, and next week will hold a “Part 2”. We invite the community to add comments to this document. It would be helpful if any of you want to help us in working on the issues; and please use the CAs' communications model outlined above for working on issues raised.

4. Checkout and close (1:48:11)

Meeting feedback form (1:48:23) Checkout (1:48:48) – each member in turn briefly says how they are feeling Meeting ends - 1:55:51

Key words from this meeting

Appendix

Intelligent-verbatim transcript of this meeting

coming soon

Agenda for this meeting

PreviousMeeting #3, 31st March 2022NextMeeting #5, 28th April 2022

Last updated