# About
Suggestions about how to develop or improve Web3 treasury systems and processes
The following resources aim to highlight some of the most promising approaches that are worth considering when implementing a Web3 treasury system. The suggestions and considerations are based on the [treasury](https://docs.treasuries.io/), [funding](https://funding.treasuries.io/) and [income](https://income.treasuries.io/) educational resources.
# Treasury suggestions
A list of Web3 treasury suggestions
The [treasury analysis](https://docs.treasuries.io/) has compared a number of approaches that are relevant for treasury systems such as voting power, voting and funding process comparisons. The following is a list of some of the most promising approaches that have been identified.
## 1. Voting power - Locked wealth based & tax contributions
Wealth based voting power is a suitable approach in the short term as most ecosystems need to attract a sufficient amount of capital and investment into the ecosystem to support the growth of the network and for developing new use cases. Capital invested into the network will make any genesis allocation for the treasury more valuable. Wealth based voting power is not fair over the long term as it gives wealthy individuals perpetual control and influence over how the network is operated. Tax contributions become one of the most important contributions to the ecosystem over the long term as the fees from transaction fees are required for the network to survive. A hybrid approach of wealth and tax based voting power helps to accommodate these two types of contribution. How the industry evolves over time will influence what other voting power approaches might also be necessary to ensure the network's fee model is fair and that it doesn't give certain people an unfair advantage over others. Relevant resources:
{% content-ref url="/spaces/qIN4B3DGHPqKOl7e6VuV/pages/9ADJqV3HGKygg9bUAD5R" %}
[Broken mention](broken://spaces/qIN4B3DGHPqKOl7e6VuV/pages/9ADJqV3HGKygg9bUAD5R)
{% endcontent-ref %}
## 2. Voting - Score voting
There are a number of different voting approaches that could be used. Plurality, majority, proportional, preference and score voting systems cover a wide range of existing approaches. Score voting was one of the most flexible approaches as it could be used for binary decisions and both single selection and multiple selection decisions. Score voting is also one of the more effective approaches for someone to express the intensity of their preference whilst voting. Relevant resources:
{% content-ref url="/spaces/qIN4B3DGHPqKOl7e6VuV/pages/F3gtZa9Is9aCgme0vNSV" %}
[Broken mention](broken://spaces/qIN4B3DGHPqKOl7e6VuV/pages/F3gtZa9Is9aCgme0vNSV)
{% endcontent-ref %}
## 3. Score voting - Expressive approval voting with a mass disapproval option
Score voting can be broken down into its different parts and then the approaches that could be used within each of those parts can be compared to identify any promising approaches that Web3 ecosystems could use. After comparing a number of approaches within score voting systems the most promising suggestion that emerged was the usage of an expressive form of approval voting that also has a mass disapproval option. The same voting option structure being suggested for approval voting can also be applied to binary voting meaning that both binary voting and approval voting could both adopt this more expressive variation. Relevant resources:
{% content-ref url="/spaces/qIN4B3DGHPqKOl7e6VuV/pages/ZMa02Hs0lGdjavL6AuVR" %}
[Broken mention](broken://spaces/qIN4B3DGHPqKOl7e6VuV/pages/ZMa02Hs0lGdjavL6AuVR)
{% endcontent-ref %}
## 4. Ecosystem funding - Contributor funding
There are a number of projects that mint a token for their project to then try and create a circular economy through transaction fees. Token based funding can be highly problematic for increasing funding, token utility, community usage and contributor collaboration complexities. Token funding can also decrease the amount of contribution flexibility that people have to make an impact across the ecosystem. Tokens are often not necessary for a number of Web3 projects. Contributor funding provides a more reliable and simple approach for developing projects that don't need a separate token. Relevant resources:
{% content-ref url="/spaces/qIN4B3DGHPqKOl7e6VuV/pages/J0nwK8jhV2mEHFxPy2kW" %}
[Broken mention](broken://spaces/qIN4B3DGHPqKOl7e6VuV/pages/J0nwK8jhV2mEHFxPy2kW)
{% endcontent-ref %}
# Funding suggestions
A list of funding process suggestions
The [funding analysis](https://funding.treasuries.io/) has compared a number of approaches that could be adopted in a funding process. The following is a list of some of the most promising approaches that have been identified.
## 1. Funding process experiment - Open source contributor funding
Combining the suggestions below led to the suggestion of experimenting with an open source contributor funding process. Contributor funding represents a far simpler funding process than idea funding for both the contributors and voters. Contributor funding can help with reducing budgeting and governance complexities, reducing the amount of duplicated efforts, increasing the amount of flexibility that contributors have to make impact across an ecosystem and can also help with reducing the amount of game theory risks there are in the funding process. Open source contributor funding proposal:
{% content-ref url="/spaces/Zzfl1XcpAphbCFDyUysC" %}
[Contributors](https://docs.contributors.org/)
{% endcontent-ref %}
## **2. Funding contributions - Independent submissions**
Independent submissions mean that a funding process would enable contributors to submit any knowledge, priority, idea or contributor related information in separate submissions from one another. The analysis helped to highlight how enabling independent submissions where information could be submitted at any time could be effective at reducing the complexity and required participation time to make contributions and also it can help with increasing the expressiveness of contributors by enabling them to contribute in any way that they prefer. This approach was by far the most flexible and supportive for inviting a wide range of contributors to participate in a way that was most suitable for them. Relevant resources:
{% content-ref url="/spaces/8L61e8ulVlk90t5mlQk1/pages/dBsDvZz82t7Y30qe8rwx" %}
[Contribution approaches](https://funding.treasuries.io/approaches/contribution-approaches)
{% endcontent-ref %}
## **3. Community preferences & opinions - Preferences and opinions invited throughout funding process**
An important part of funding for Web3 ecosystems is considering how community members are able to express their preferences and opinions about the information that has been shared during funding. Enabling community members to provide their feedback and comments anywhere in the funding process on any piece of information that gets submitted has a number of clear advantages. These advantages include that it can help with generating clearer sentiment & approvals, faster feedback & learning, creating a more inclusive environment and can increase the amount of contributor accountability and community representation, engagement and responsiveness. Relevant resources:
{% content-ref url="/spaces/8L61e8ulVlk90t5mlQk1/pages/R9fU5gvIYpIGov9dDP1p" %}
[Voter preferences & opinions](https://funding.treasuries.io/outcome-influence/voter-preferences-and-opinions)
{% endcontent-ref %}
## **4. Decision making - Delegated idea selection**
There are many different decisions that can occur during funding and a range of different ways that these decisions could be handled. Some of the key decisions that happen across a funding process include the selection of knowledge, priorities, ideas and contributors. The most promising approach for reducing the amount of voter participation time required and voting complexity whilst also increasing the amount of voter expressiveness was the delegated idea selection approach. This approach focuses on pushing the responsibility of selecting ideas to work on towards the contributors that the community have selected. The community should still be able to express their preferences and opinions on these ideas as mentioned in the above suggestion. The community would be responsible for selecting the most important priorities and most suitable contributors. This approach provided high flexibility and also dramatically helped with making the funding process more scalable by making it much easier and quicker for voters to participate in the most important funding decisions. Relevant resources:
{% content-ref url="/spaces/8L61e8ulVlk90t5mlQk1/pages/Tz9TdV1bmcLov9z8yGyo" %}
[Decision approaches](https://funding.treasuries.io/approaches/decision-approaches)
{% endcontent-ref %}
## **5. Incentives - Contributor time incentives**
How incentives get attached during the funding process has a large influence on the budgeting, decision and governance complexities and the flexibility there is for contribution efforts to change as needed. The most promising approach was the usage of contributor time incentives. Contributor time incentives means contributors are paid for the time they contribute towards executing ideas and supporting an ecosystem. This approach was the most effective for reducing the overall complexities and risks involved whilst also increasing the flexibility to handle a fast changing environment. Relevant resources:
{% content-ref url="/spaces/8L61e8ulVlk90t5mlQk1/pages/K0EHlJYJdyl5dYXmisol" %}
[Incentive approaches](https://funding.treasuries.io/approaches/incentive-approaches)
{% endcontent-ref %}
## **6. Contribution verification approaches - Individual time based contribution logs**
When treasury assets get allocated to help with executing impactful initiatives a community can benefit from being able to verify that those funds have been used responsibly and that they have actually been used to pay for meaningful contribution efforts. There were a number of approaches that could be used to help with recording and verifying the contribution efforts that are made by ecosystem contributors. One of the most effective approaches for increasing the measurability and accuracy of the contribution logs is when individuals are requested to submit a record of their monthly contribution efforts. Relevant resources:
{% content-ref url="/spaces/8L61e8ulVlk90t5mlQk1/pages/nsItcGnr0ik3B1Lz3pnO" %}
[Contribution verification approaches](https://funding.treasuries.io/approaches/contribution-verification-approaches)
{% endcontent-ref %}
## **7. Impact measurement approaches - Contributor impact measurement**
Every approach that has been compared are all important for funding processes that want to effectively improve how they measure impact. Measuring the impact generated by addressed priorities, executed ideas and individuals contribution efforts can all help with improving the funding process and future decision making. However one approach that showed a stronger opportunity for improving future decision making was the approach that focused on contributor impact measurement. Measuring the amount of impact a contributor has been able to generate has a large opportunity to improve future decision making. The contributors who consistently generate the most impact can be repeatedly selected and funded to continue their execution efforts in future decisions. Relevant resources:
{% content-ref url="/spaces/8L61e8ulVlk90t5mlQk1/pages/zw2NUk51NEU0YKChHwAq" %}
[Impact measurement approaches](https://funding.treasuries.io/approaches/impact-measurement-approaches)
{% endcontent-ref %}
## 8. Idea ownership approaches - Shared ideas
A goal of Web3 technology is to help with increasing the amount of decentralization of the networks and technology that society is increasingly relying on. Instead of a group of founders and board members being able to control the direction and usage of certain services the users of these services could be given more ownership and influence over these networks and services. To achieve this outcome it will become increasingly important that ideas are owned by communities of people rather than a few individuals. Shared ideas with elected leadership or emergent leadership are two approaches that are well aligned with the ethos of the Web3 movement. Experimenting with contributor funding instead of idea based funding is one way that more shared ownership of ideas could be better explored. Relevant resources:
{% content-ref url="/spaces/8L61e8ulVlk90t5mlQk1/pages/jqfQwWeKMRzewA6EGy7N" %}
[Idea ownership approaches](https://funding.treasuries.io/ideas/idea-ownership-approaches)
{% endcontent-ref %}
# Funding process considerations
A list of suggested considerations to make when implementing a funding process
The funding analysis helped to generate a number of suggestions about the most promising approaches that could be adopted. The following helps to highlight some more factors to consider when implementing a funding process.
## Knowledge process
**1. Identify the most relevant and important areas of knowledge**
Improving the funding process and decisions can be more easily achieved by identifying the different sources of information that could be relevant and important for the community to consider. Making this list of potentially relevant information sources can help with identifying where any gaps exist in the ecosystem in terms of the currently available knowledge sources. Documenting what information would be most useful for an ecosystem's funding process can be useful for creating a shared understanding of how the funding process could be improved over time. This understanding can also help with highlighting how complex the decisions are for funding and how much information might need to be digested to make well informed decisions. Understanding this can help to inspire new ideas about how that information could be better presented to further save voters time when they are reviewing the available knowledge sources.
**2. Identify existing systems and processes that help with knowledge creation and aggregation**
Reviewing the available knowledge sources can help to reveal the types of knowledge sources that already exist in the ecosystem and what information areas have no current solution or process. Understanding which knowledge sources are currently missing can help with starting the discussion about how fundamental that information could be for making good funding decisions, how that information source could be created and how decisions could be made without that information in the meantime. Another benefit of reviewing the existing information sources is that it can help to highlight gaps or potential issues in the existing solutions that the ecosystem is using and how those issues could be resolved. Creating a resource that helps to bring together all of the available information sources together into an easy to understand format could also help with reducing the overall complexity for voters to find the most relevant and important information.
**3. Determine what knowledge sources could be created or improved in the future**
Knowledge systems and processes will need to evolve over time as the ecosystem and environment changes and new information sources emerge that could positively influence what initiatives might be the most impactful for an ecosystem. Taking an active approach with improving the knowledge process will entail the community being able to make suggestions on how the existing sources could be improved and what new ones could be introduced. Information can also be presented in many ways visually and could also be combined with other pieces of information to help with identifying new insights and learnings. A funding process can consider how the most relevant information could be further integrated into the process so it becomes more easily accessible and reliable for voters to consider. Small improvements in ease of access to important information could have a profound impact on improving the scalability of a funding process due to the time it could save voters. Identifying the most useful formats to present the available information could help with reducing the total time it takes for voters to understand and digest the most important information.
## Priority process
**4. Document any mission statements, principles and values**
An ecosystem might have a certain mission or overarching set of goals that they are trying to achieve over the long term. Web3 ecosystems could have been designed and implemented in a way that is most aligned with achieving this mission over the long term. An ecosystem can document any mission statement, principles or values to help community members better understand the current intentions for the ecosystem. Some ecosystems may also decide to document a constitution to more formally outline the background and governance structures involved in the ecosystem. The founding entities of these ecosystems will want to consider how any of their existing goals and mission could change over time as the ecosystem evolves and as community preferences change. Documenting this information can help with improving the prioritisation process as the community members will then be able to more easily reflect on this information and incorporate that understanding into their own priority suggestions.
**5. Identify the feasible and relevant areas of focus**
Some Web3 ecosystems may have been designed to cater for a certain set of use cases and applications. For instance one ecosystem could be highly focused on making the best network possible for financial systems and applications. This prioritisation about how the infrastructure is built can then influence the types of priorities that make more sense during an ecosystems funding process. Documenting the most potentially impactful use cases and features that a Web3 ecosystems infrastructure is suitable for can help with improving the communities awareness and prioritisation of the most promising ideas that could be most suitable for utilising the ecosystems infrastructure to its fullest potential.
## Idea process
**6. Identify the suitable and unsuitable types of ideas**
Certain ideas may be less effective in certain Web3 ecosystems due to how the network's infrastructure and protocols have been designed. If this situation is the case for certain ecosystems then this information would be highly valuable to document and share with the community so they can learn about what factors should be considered when suggesting ideas that could be executed. This can also help with identifying the different problems and opportunities that exist in the ecosystem for certain types of ideas. Shared knowledge about the current infrastructure and any limitations could help to inspire new ideas that are focused on resolving those particular limitations and problems.
**7. Determine how learnings from executed ideas can be documented and shared**
Each executed idea can help with generating a diversity of learnings about what works and what doesn’t, the market, usage trends and the opportunities there are to generate further impact with certain ideas. One consideration that an ecosystem can make is how they can record and document any new learnings made from executed ideas. Existing contributors and future contributors can benefit from these learnings such as by preventing them from repeating any previous mistakes or by helping them identify some of the more promising ideas and areas that could be focused on to generate impact for the ecosystem.
## Contributor process
**8. Identify what skills and experience are most relevant to the ecosystem**
Each ecosystem could be more suitable for certain ideas than others based on the strengths and weaknesses of the ecosystem's network and infrastructure. As well as this the skills and experiences that are most useful for the ecosystem will be influenced by the priorities and ideas that get selected by the community. Identifying the skills and experiences more accurately can help with improving the accuracy of any efforts made to attract suitable contributors that have the right skills and experience to execute the most promising ideas to a high standard. The priorities and needs for an ecosystem could likely change and evolve over time. This creates an ongoing need for a community to periodically consider what skills and experience could be the most suitable for the ecosystem at that point in time.
**9. Identify how contributors can most effectively collaborate and work together**
An ecosystem can have a multitude of ideas that could be impactful to work on and each of those ideas could have many intersecting parts where different ideas integrate into and get used by numerous other solutions. Considerations can be made about what systems and processes could be most effective for supporting the collaboration between existing contributors in the ecosystem to better support the overlapping and intersecting ideas that can exist that each group of initiatives can benefit from. Increasing the amount of collaboration across the ecosystem can help to increase the speed in which contributors are able to execute the most promising ideas.
# Income suggestions
A list of income related suggestions
The [income analysis](https://income.treasuries.io/) has compared a number of approaches that help with improving how treasuries can generate income to become more self sustainable. The following is a list of some of the most promising approaches that have been identified.
## 1. Short term treasury income - Genesis allocation
There can often be a relatively low number of transactions in the short term for new ecosystems. This makes transaction fees a difficult approach to generate income for the treasury in the short term the amount more use cases and adoption has increased. A genesis treasury allocation can give an ecosystem some initial funding to pay for the contribution efforts involved in making network improvements, launching new projects and growing the community. A genesis allocation is not as suitable as a long term income solution as eventually the funding will often be used to pay for contribution efforts that improve and grow the ecosystem. Relevant resources:
{% content-ref url="/spaces/ZoHfKJYKPW9AnonUHAUO/pages/moujMUuRKBjavj38CKdj" %}
[Income approaches](https://income.treasuries.io/approaches/income-approaches)
{% endcontent-ref %}
## 2. Long term treasury income - Transaction fees & Reusing inactive assets
Transaction fees are the most important long term income source for treasuries. An ecosystem will need to generate enough growth and adoption to increase the volume of transactions so the network can become sustainable. Another supplementary income approach that could also be useful for the long term is by reusing inactive assets. People can lose access to their funds for a number of reasons such as forgetting a password or pin code or from passing away without sharing your details to a family member or friend. Assets that haven't moved for a long period of time could be reused as a source of income for the network. This prevents a fixed supply network from becoming deflationary over time due to the loss of user assets. Relevant resources:
{% content-ref url="/spaces/ZoHfKJYKPW9AnonUHAUO/pages/moujMUuRKBjavj38CKdj" %}
[Income approaches](https://income.treasuries.io/approaches/income-approaches)
{% endcontent-ref %}
## 3. Transaction fees - Fixed & percentage fees
Transaction fees need to be fair, sustainable and stable at scale. Transaction fees impact how people use a network on a daily basis. Adopting an approach that mixes fixed fees with percentage fees can help with combining the best elements of these fee approaches. A minimum fixed fee can help to protect the network from spam attacks due to the minimum cost of trying to attack the network. Percentage fees can help to ensure that the wealthiest individuals aren't given an advantage over the poorer individuals as everyone would need to pay a proportional amount in fees based on the value of the transactions they are creating. Relevant resources:
{% content-ref url="/spaces/ZoHfKJYKPW9AnonUHAUO/pages/SDXlI7kQIPBpUfE7kOI5" %}
[Transaction fee approaches](https://income.treasuries.io/approaches/transaction-fee-approaches)
{% endcontent-ref %}
