The problem that the proposal Inverter is trying to solve is to some extent work in progress because problems to which the Proposal Inverter (PI) may be a solution (in other words Use Cases ) are still being imagined and explored. Yet, nevertheless this piece of documentation will summarise how the Proposal inverter was conceived in the past. Supplementary readings to all references of the proposal inverter can be found in ‣ written by Shawn. Overall, it is recommended to read the entire second section of Block Sciences article “Exploring DAO2DAO Collaboration Mechanisms”.
The problem with current DAO Tooling is describe in Block Sciences article “Exploring DAO2DAO Collaboration Mechanisms” by Cem F Dagdelen , Jeff Emmett , Max Hampshire , Shermin Voshmgir , and Michael Zargham under the heading “2.1 Proposal Inverter”.
The article identified that DAO proposals can be administratively costly due to “multiple networks, tokens, protocols, and schedule timelines” (Dagdelen et al., 2021). This compounds with the number of DAOs participating. The result is that attention of the contractor is diverted to administrative work rather than the work for which the proposal is put forward as illustrated below. **
Credit: (Dagdelen et al., 2021)
The time spent on the administrative side of proposal compounds with:
The Proposal Inverter provides a potential solution as it “is a funding primitive that enables multiple groups or individuals to collaborate on common proposals, inverting the typical Proposal/DAO relationship”.
Challenge 1: The administrative burden by the reapplying for proposals
First, inverts the Proposal/ DAO relationship by setting up a contract between trusted contractors and the DAO(s). This contract can persist as long as it is being funded by the DAO (or cancelled). This means the responsibility to end the agreement lays with the DAO in choosing whether to opt to stop funding the proposal when it is no longer delivering value for the community. This prevent the contractors from repeatedly filing a proposal.
Note: A great example provided in by Dagdelen et al. (2021) to understand the PI dynamic compared to a traditional proposal is the “difference between consensus (where everyone agrees on a proposal) with consent (where no one objects to the proposal).
Credit: (Dagdelen et al., 2021)
Credit: (Dagdelen et al., 2021)
Challenge 2: The administrative burden by coordinating parties
Secondly, the structure allows multiple funders to join and contribute funds to a proposal and allow these funds to be distributed according to a given policy to several whitelisted contractors. Thus minimising the administrative burden of managing addresses and funds by agreeing initially when setting up the Proposal Inverter.