Inverse Finance Proposal & Budgeting Process


This proposal provides a detailed outline of the proposed approach taken for the Season 1 proposal and budgeting process. Season 1 will run from October 1st through to March 31st 2024.

Current pain points

Generally the Inverse Finance community showcases high quality proposal writing, testament to the capability of Inverse Finance Contributors.

However, the current proposal/budget process suffers from a number of pain points:

  • No clear guidance on proposal process
    • Contributors do not have clear direction on how to best navigate the budgeting & proposal process
  • No consistency in proposal timing
    • Different proposals are posted at different times covering different funding periods. This creates an ad hoc approach to funding that makes it difficult to plan and assess long term spend.
  • No consistency in WG proposal template
    • Standardisation is difficult in a DAO, and any proposal can pass governance. However, the current process places the burden on contributor to design their own proposal structure and makes it difficult for token holders to clearly evaluate and assess proposals
  • No standardised template for ad hoc WG budget requests
    • This makes it hard for token holders to assess additional requested spend in relation to what has already been spent.
  • No consistent approach to WG accountability
    • Prevents WG from demonstrating their success and reduces the ability of token holders to make informed decisions on funding
  • Quarterly cadence of the budgeting process creates high admin burden on already busy contributors
    • This has led to out of sync budget process, with some proposals delayed or covering retrospective funding
  • WG budget process is separated from core contributor onboarding
    • Full time contributor spend is the most significant portion of WG spend. By separating the two it makes it difficult for token holders to assess the true cost /value of each WG
  • No clear mechanism for descoping existing WGs or offboarding core contributors
    • No clear mechanism for how core contributors would be offboarded. DOLA payroll stem into perpetuity unless terminated directly through governance or by TWG

Season 1 proposal and budgeting process

A detailed process map of the S1 proposal and budgeting process can be found below:

The intention of these changes is to minimise disruption and enable continuity of operations - whilst layering in organisational infrastructure improvements to improve accountability, transparency and fairness.

Summary of key changes


  • Move to a “Season” model, with Season 1 lasting 6 months from October 1st through to March 1st 2024. (6 month). You can read more about the Seasonal model @ Inverse Finance here
    • The Seasonal model allows for more forward planning and reduce admin burden vs a quarterly budget cadence
  • Season “half time” (after three months) where WGs have the opportunity to provide more detailed updates and request funding adjustments
    • Whilst ad hoc funding adjustment can still be made. Focusing the majority of budget adjustments through a Season half time will improve accountability and encourage a more focused and forward looking approach to planning.

Standardised template and process

  • Standardised template used across all WGs for both WG approval and ad hoc funding requests. You can view the standardised WG proposal template here.
    • This reduces the admin burden on WGs to design their own proposal template. Makes it easier for token holders to compare impact across WGs and allows for clearer financial tracking and reporting.
  • Proposal template detailed WG Objectives [1] responsibilities [2] projects [3] and success metrics [4]
    • By standardising key measurements of impact across WGs we encourage greater focus on “what moves the needle” and improves overall accountability
    • If the Proposal template is not used, the proposer will be notified of this on the Governance Forum and provided with additional guidance on best practices for submitting. However, WG can choose to use their own template - though this may reduce the likelihood of the Proposal being passed.
  • Each WG should include a flexible allocation for anticipated ad hoc spend during the Season. We recommend this to be 10-20% of total WG spend
  • This reduces the pressure on the Governance system to fund small or ad hoc spending requests, reducing bureaucracy and increasing efficiency. There should be social consensus that WG proposal not in standardised format will not be supported by delegates

Transparency & Holistic

  • Each Season each WG has an “WG update thread” were the communicate key progress / information within the Season
    • This is a clean way for each WG to demonstrate their success, and make it easy for any community member to quickly see what has been achieved by the WG
  • Financial reporting integrated into the budget and proposal process with an “Financial Status Report”, “Proposal Spend Summary” and “Budget vs Actuals” insights produced
    • This allows the Inverse Finance community to holistically understand, and make informed decisions based on their current and projected financial situation

Contributor whitelisting

  • All contributors named with a WG proposal will be provided “whitelisted” governance status. This gives them the ability to submit governance proposals even if they do not hold the minimum threshold of INV
    • This allows contributors to interact seamlessly with the governance process and reduce operational friction and bottleneck of proposals created by having only a small number of the core team able to submit proposals on chain. This is limited to suggesting proposals, and token holders retain ultimate decision making power.

Engaging, offboarding and continuation of contributors grants

  • Current contributors’ $DOLA grants will be updated to finish at the end September 15th, 2023. Further contributor grants must then be refreshed as part of the Season 1 WG proposals.
  • Each contributor will specify the $DOLA monthly grant they would like to receive for the duration of Season 1. This must then be approved by tokenholders via governance. This means WG Governance Approval represents a vote for continuation of contributors grants.
    • This makes it easier to assess the cost/impact of each WG, and creates a $INV backed mechanism to offboard contributors and incentive contributors to directly and transparently engage in the Season 1 WG proposal process as specified above.


The full end to end Season 1 Timeline can be viewed here.

Step 1 | Planning

Step 2 | Planning

Step 3 | Proposal Approved

Step 4-6 | Season 1 delivery


The intention behind this proposed structure is to create an improved and efficient WG budgeting and proposal process that empowers $INV holders and improves their ability to influence the trajectory and spend of the DAO.

Onchain action

  • Set DOLA allowance of payroll contract to 1,000,000
  • Set Patb DOLA payroll to 0
  • Set Ishita DOLA payroll to 0
  • Set theAlienTourist DOLA payroll to 0
  • Set 0xMT DOLA payroll to 0
  • Set naoufel DOLA payroll to 0
  • Set cryptoharry DOLA payroll to 0
  • Set nakamomo DOLA payroll to 0
  • Set 99donuts DOLA payroll to 0
  • Set Karm DOLA payroll to 0
  • Set Edo DOLA payroll to 0

Overall I’m supportive of the model proposed but I don’t believe the immediate action of setting onchain payrolls will contribute to any sort of continuity in the operations of the organization.

While I recognize that payrolls are high, it must also be recognized that working in the space comes with risks, an immediate reduction to zero represents a breach of trust to people who have dedicated their time and labor to this project.

In my opinion the model must take a phased approach so that you aren’t suddenly cutting off a contributors income stream.


I would suggest a four week implementation from time of proposal acceptance if applicable. If that requires a portion of funds set aside in the proposal to fit the seasonal model then so be it, but give people the notice they need to take care of their lives. Just my two cents


I agree with @mason, it is very disconcerting.

1 Like

Completely agree and thanks for this sentiment. It’s not making much sense to me, maybe the process is unclear.

1 Like

I would imagine WG proposals will be timed to go through gov at the same time as this Budgeting Process Proposal so that there is minimal delay, if any, between payrolls being set to 0 and new payrolls kicking in. Also, imo there is ample notice with this proposal being posted on August 15th (and discussed internally even earlier) and Season 1 commencing September 15th.

If WG proposal fail, then follow up proposal can include budget for backdated compensation on whatever the new comp is.


Thanks for the clarification

Hi @mason, it’s a great query.

In an ideal world we would be able to set a specific date for when the olds budgets end and new budget beings to avoid any overlap or gaps. This is targeted for the 15th of September. Unfortunately our governance structure does not allow that. For that reason we published this proposal with corresponding on-chain action now so that when the timing is right we take the proposal through governance and minimize disruption/overlap whilst payroll adjustments are taking place.

I’ve set budgets in organizations before. It’s usually a collaborative effort, so I hope this engagement with r3gen includes supports to groups.

Setting budgets, even on a six month timeline, is by no means a small task.

Lots of proposals coming through governance in the next two weeks. Lots to read and try to digest

Fast approaching the 9/15 target date. Should we be expecting working group proposals to come across soon?

Yes. Also if working group proposals aren’t given enough time on forum for discussion the September 15th date will be pushed back.

1 Like