The second term of the Contributor Efficiency System (CES) has been successfully completed, and we are pleased to conclude operations by publishing this report reviewing the CES’s operations over the past three months. We also want to thank the Safe community for their support in extending the CES mandate for a third term with the passing of SEP 52. As we look ahead to the third term in 2025, we aim to apply the key learnings from this report, while continuing to provide support for initiatives throughout the ongoing OBRA restructuring.
Table of Contents
- I. Abstract
- II. Background & Scope
- III. Executive Summary
- IV. CES Operations Review & Stakeholder Feedback
- V. OBRA 2.0 Support & Stakeholder Feedback
- VI. Key Learnings and Recommendations
- VII. Way Forward
- VIII. Relevant Links
I. Abstract
As of the beginning of December, the second term of the Contribution Efficiency System (CES) has successfully wrapped up, concluding a three month period marked by the hands-on management of grants program infrastructure, enabling the smooth operation of SafeDAO’s Outcomes-Based Resource Allocation (OBRA) framework.
Since the extension of the CES in August, the CES team has continued operating the system, providing holistic grants support for initiatives while introducing process improvements, as well as collecting and implementing feedback from different stakeholder groups on the state of OBRA/CES.
This CES/OBRA Review & Learning report provides details about the CES’s operations over the past three months in light of its objectives of ensuring ongoing management of initiatives and support for OBRA restructuring. Additionally this report reflects the CES’s growth since inception, operational elements, and crucially, learnings and recommendations for future CES iterations and the evolution of OBRA for SafeDAO.
II. Background & Scope
The CES (SEP 17) was initially proposed in January 2024 as an enabling tool for OBRA, fulfilling much-needed onboarding, tracking, and reporting for OBRA initiatives, thereby fostering transparency and accountability of initiatives to SafeDAO.
After the conclusion of its initial four-month term, the mandate was extended in August (SEP 37) for an additional three months, intended to fulfill the gap in reporting coverage as the next evolution of OBRA was being iterated and implemented. While the initial CES term focused on establishing the operational processes and infrastructure for streamlining OBRA, the extension term aimed at ongoing system management, ensuring continuity for initiatives and stakeholder reliant on reporting updates amid the ongoing organizational restructuring of OBRA.
This report provides an overview of the CES’s operational processes, learnings and outcomes during its three-month extension phase commencing from August 2024 to date (i.e., CES 2.0). Accordingly, the scope of this report encompasses:
→ An overview of the program’s operational elements since CES 1.0
→ CES/OBRA feedback across various stakeholder groups
→ Key learnings from the CES team, as an involved party
III. Executive Summary
Since the inception of the CES, the managing team has played a key role in interfacing with OBRA’s key stakeholders, soliciting feedback, and advising on the evolution/growth of OBRA; CES 2.0 was no exception. Building upon the foundations established in the initial term, this iteration prioritized operational continuity and strategic support for the OBRA restructuring process. The CES team successfully maintained core operational pillars while adapting to the dynamic structure and needs of the SafeDAO ecosystem.
Key achievements include meeting all established performance targets, with stakeholder surveys indicating high satisfaction, rating the CES 8.6 out of 10 across key dimensions of onboarding, communication, and tracking/reporting. While the ratings reflect a clear improvement from CES 1.0, we still see tracking and reporting as the area with the most potential for improvement, and we’ve taken action to enhance the accessibility of reporting documentation for the Safe community. Moving forward, we aim to continue focusing on supporting the transition to OBRA 2.0, as the CES team has proven to be a valuable resource, serving as a critical liaison between initiatives, the Safe Governance team, and the broader community.
IV. CES Operations Review & Stakeholder Feedback
IV.1 Operations Review
Borne out of the Efficiency Mapping exercise of CES 1.0, which identified and solidified the four pillars of grant program management (onboarding, milestone-setting, tracking and reporting), these same pillars have been maintained as the foundation of the CES. However, given the specific mandate of CES 2.0, there was a natural progression beyond the initial four pillars to include support for OBRA 2.0. At this time, an evolved OBRA framework involving a proposed ‘Committees and Councils’ structure was being iterated on in the forums, and collecting feedback and providing support for initiatives during this phase was key.
This is the major sense in which CES 2.0 differs from CES 1.0, as the former took a step further from general system management to executing the specific objective of ensuring continuity and providing support for initiatives within the context of OBRA’s restructuring. We were able to expand the scope of the CES as such, in large part due to the streamlining and refining of CES processes, including counterparties familiarity with our processes which in many instances allowed for faster onboarding and tracking updates.
The topic of OBRA restructuring will therefore remain a constant theme throughout this report as it influenced CES 2.0’s operations and will play a larger role in planned future CES iterations. We will be examining all these facets of the CES in the subsequent subsections.
IV.1.1 Continuous / Ongoing Management
As in CES 1.0, we continued to facilitate onboarding, milestone-setting, tracking and reporting for initiatives in CES 2.0. Besides general efficiency improvements in carrying out these activities, the substance remained largely the same. A detailed description of the nature of these processes, as well as the infrastructure established for their management and automation has been previously discussed in our CES 1.0 report.
The following resources provide more insight into the output of our function of ongoing system management for OBRA:
→ Milestone-setting sheets for OBRA initiatives here.
→ Reporting sheets for OBRA initiatives here.
→ CES monthly reporting on Safe forums here.
IV.1.2 Stakeholder Interactions
The CES also continued to facilitate and maintain communication channels between different OBRA stakeholders, including initiatives, the Safe governance team and the larger Safe DAO community. This resulted from our hands-on approach and deep relationship with Safe Governance, thereby expanding the scope of the CES to encompass holistic support for OBRA.
This was particularly important given the OBRA restructuring exercise, allowing us to aid the iteration process by providing feedback and serving as sparring partners to the Safe governance team during the ongoing redesign.
IV.2. CES Stakeholder Feedback
In this iteration of the CES, our emphasis was on optimizing already established processes in order to improve the overall experience for all relevant parties. Accordingly, we have taken in feedback through surveys and selected interviews with key parties involved with the CES including OBRA applicants, initiatives, delegates / guardians, and the Safe governance team. The feedback we collected specifically measured the efficiency of the CES across all core operational areas. Overall, in terms of performance ratings, the CES hit all the target KPIs as set out in the proposal (SEP 37). The results from the survey showed that stakeholders experienced all-round efficiency improvement in CES operations. Below we provide graphical highlights of the outcomes of the survey:
From the feedback we received from respondents, some constructive points that we took into consideration for the next CES iteration were:
- Accessibility of Documentation: While highlighting the high quality of CES data, individual respondents cited difficulties accessing it. We started working on this by including more links to CES documentation in our forum reporting. Additionally, there are also plans to migrate CES data to the Safe governance hub for easy accessibility.
“Documentation and communication is good, just sometimes hard to find.”
Overall, stakeholders were generally satisfied and appreciative of the CES:
“Good communications. Created a safe environment so It was really easy to report honestly and clearly.”
“I appreciate how responsive the Areta team has been and their efforts to support us with our questions.”
V. OBRA 2.0 Support & Stakeholder Feedback
V.1 OBRA 2.0 Support
V.1.1 Background
The Safe Governance team introduced a proposal to establish a new organizational structure as an amendment to OBRA and to reshape SafeDAO’s grants strategy. Under the proposed structure, “Committees and Councils” will be established to create and execute strategies for capital allocation respectively.
With the passing of SEP 45, SafeDAO introduced a transition period for implementing the Committees and Councils structure. The proposal provided a timeline for implementation which would see the proposed structure being fully implemented in Season 4 Sprint 2 of OBRA (i.e., November 2024).
However, following a feedback process involving the broader SafeDAO community, the resolution was that the OBRA restructuring will proceed at a slower pace, through an iterative design process. This approach will see a lightweight version of the proposed structure being implemented before a complete overhaul. Consequently, SEP 49 was proposed to introduce a minimum viable first version of the Committees and Councils structure in SafeDAO.
V.1.2. CES Support for OBRA 2.0
The topic of OBRA restructuring is a major theme of CES 2.0, with supporting the setup of OBRA 2.0 being a crucial component of the initiative’s objective. As SafeDAO entered the transition period for implementing the Committees and Councils structure, new applications to OBRA were paused for one sprint (Season 4 Sprint 1), while the CES was tasked with ensuring continuity for existing and new initiatives at that time.
Accordingly, the CES was heavily involved in the restructuring of OBRA. Specifically, the CES team played a key role in the ideation process, collecting feedback from initiatives and facilitating community discussion around the topic. The feedback design thinking was generally centered around evaluating the overall relevance and shape of the CES within a future Committees and Councils structure.
V.2 OBRA Stakeholder Feedback
As part of our efforts to provide support for OBRA 2.0, we collected feedback from relevant OBRA stakeholders including initiatives, delegates, guardians, etc., in order to assess the effectiveness of the current OBRA framework, gather perspectives on the Committees and Council structure, and evaluate the extent to which the CES provided support for OBRA 2.0.
V.2.1 OBRA Quality Ratings
We asked participants to rate the quality of OBRA’s processes and strategic focus in effectively achieving the goals of SafeDAO. The graphic below summarizes the quality ratings of the OBRA framework across various stakeholder groups, providing an insight into its perception and possibly justifying its ongoing restructuring.
V.2.2 Feedback on OBRA 2.0
There has been ongoing extensive discussion around OBRA 2.0 in the Safe community since its initial proposal in September. We sought to gather perspectives on what stakeholders considered crucial to the implementation of the Committees and Councils structure, as well as general improvement suggestions for OBRA. Specifically, the questionnaire asked the following questions:
→ From your perspective, do you have any thoughts, comments, or ideas to improve OBRA going forward?
→ From your perspective, what elements would you like to see included or omitted from the impending Committees & Councils structure?
Based on the responses we received, we were able to identify the following key themes summarized below:
Impact Measurement
Multiple respondents cited the need for retroactive analysis of funded initiatives to measure their impact, achievement of stated objectives, and overall contribution to the Safe ecosystem. Respondents suggested implementing additional mechanisms for retroactively funding “overachieving” initiatives.
- Example: “…what’s missing is a retroactive public analysis of funded initiatives” and “…we should improve on how can we measure the impact of each initiative.”
Community Engagement and Quality Feedback
Respondents pointed out the issue of low-context feedback from delegates and reduced discussion of proposals, calling for higher quality feedback and improved overall community engagement under the restructured OBRA framework.
- Example: “Provide qualitative feedback on the proposals…” and “…restore a healthy discussion culture.”
Cost Management and Oversight
Some respondents believed that the DAO could benefit from subjecting initiatives to more scrutiny regarding budgets and costs, and exercising a higher level of financial oversight over initiatives in OBRA 2.0
- Example: “Also I believe that many of the approved OBRA initiatives are not well checked for their costs.”
Process Transparency
Respondents expressed concerns that the new Committees and Councils structure might introduce additional complexity to the existing OBRA framework. The overall sentiment is to reduce opacity around processes such as tracking balances for OBRA strategies and to make existing information more visible.
- Example: “…focusing more on how we can make processes more structured, predictable, inclusive and accountable.”
V.2.3 Feedback on CES Support for OBRA 2.0
As previously highlighted, a core part of our objectives and KPIs was to meaningfully support the setup of OBRA 2.0. Therefore, it was important for us to collect feedback to assess the extent to which we fulfilled this objective. Regarding this, the Safe Governance team, as the primary stewards of the OBRA restructuring exercise were the highest-context parties that could meaningfully provide feedback surrounding the CES’s involvement with OBRA 2.0.
We asked the Safe governance team to describe how the CES helped support the transition to OBRA 2.0. The feedback centered around the CES team serving as sparring partners to the Safe team during the initial design stages of OBRA 2.0. At that time, the CES team provided extensive feedback on the proposed Councils and Committees structure, drawing on our deep involvement in operationalizing OBRA. Our feedback helped guide the iteration process, ensuring that factors such as efficiency, accountability, transparency, and scalability were adequately considered.
VI. Key Learnings and Recommendations
Drawing from our experience during the CES’s second term, we have identified several key learnings and recommendations for subsequent terms. We feel well-suited to share these insights given our position as CES facilitators for the past two seasons, while also doubling as initiatives, having originated as successful OBRA applicants. Thus dual role places us among the highest-context parties on the topic.
Bearing in mind the goal of further optimizing the operations of the CES and ensuring continuity as OBRA undergoes restructuring, the learnings / recommendations below represent what we consider to be the most critical considerations going forward:
VI.1 Co-Grantee Support
Learning
OBRA initiatives (i.e., grantees) do not have a joint channel for coordination, causing them to miss out on valuable co-grantee feedback and support, while increasing support overhead for the Safe governance team.
Recommendation
Create a joint channel for all OBRA initiatives that provides a direct line of communication between initiatives and facilitates co-grantee support.
VI.2 Impact Measurement
Learning
Currently, the evaluation of initiatives is limited to the completion of milestones. There is no measurement of the impact of funded initiatives on the Safe ecosystem. This issue has been highlighted by multiple stakeholders in the CES/OBRA feedback surveys.
Recommendation
Publish an OBRA retro report that measures the impact of funded OBRA initiatives on the Safe ecosystem after a period of time.
VI.3 Milestone-based Payments
Learning
Under the current framework, grant payments are ‘streamed’ to grantees at the end of each reporting period. Ideally, this translates to streamed funds coinciding with completed milestones. This is because the CES ensures that milestone completion timelines coincide with the end of each reporting period. However, this streaming approach often fails to reflect the actual progress and unforeseen blockers affecting initiatives. As a result, payments sometimes continue to be streamed to initiatives regardless of milestone completion.
Recommendation
Provide initiatives with an initial upfront / kickoff payment and strictly tie subsequent payments to completion of milestones.
VI.4 Data Accessibility & Migration
Learning
While the CES Notion Hubs holds comprehensive and rich data on the status of OBRA applications, and tracking and reporting information on all initiatives, it is not easily accessible. Feedback we have received has consistently highlighted the high quality and availability data, but difficulty in accessing it.
Recommendation
Maintain a dedicated CES information thread on the forum to improve accessibility and visibility of data on OBRA and initiatives. Work with the Safe governance team on migrating CES data to the Safe Governance Hub.
VI.5 CES Handover
Learning
As OBRA 2.0 continues to take full shape, it is not yet certain what role the CES will play under the new structure, if any. In the event that a new tracking and reporting reporting infrastructure is established in place of the CES, there will be a need to handover or aid that transition.
Recommendation
Ensure robust documentation of CES processes and operations to facilitate a smooth handover and transition when needed.
VII. Way Forward
As the timeline for OBRA 2.0 becomes clearer, our CES bridge extension (SEP 52) has been proposed to continue providing coverage and ensuring continuity for initiatives for an additional three months or until the Committees and Councils structure is fully implemented. The proposal has successfully passed on Snapshot.
After streamlining processes for the CES for over nearly one year of operations we look forward to maintaining the CES, handing over or supporting the transition to the next tracking and reporting infrastructure necessary for SafeDAO.