Funding Request from the SuperUMAn DAO

[ifun]

I vote yes on this proposal! Great one guys

[gr8ness]

I support this proposal, the SuperUMAns being the evangelistic arm of UMA are doing a lot

[Pandrake]

You did an outstanding job putting everything all together! Work is outstanding. And, as a superhuman, I’m excited to keep spreading the word about UMA products.

[SurfTranquille]

I am supportive of this proposal.

As a SuperUMAn DAO member, I know that the SuperUMAn DAO funding is a very efficient way to help promote and develop the UMAverse. I also appreciate and understand the reservations and criticism laid out by mrice32 and Mhairi-UMA above in particular. I believe these are subject matters that should indeed be reviewed and addressed by the SU team and I have no doubt that this can be improved on. This could become metrics that SUs would be evaluated on for next epoch for ex.

As an UMA DAO member, I am confident that having that moving arm that is the SuperUMAns will help push forwards UMA awareness in the web3 space. They are at the forefront, exploring new opportunities and expanding the UMAverse in all directions.

[Tom]

I agree with others that the deliverables should be more narrowly defined. Why not issue KPI options for the following deliverables?

• Achieve a minimum of six UMA product integrations with other DAOs.
• Continue expanding our educational efforts with a minimum of 8 learning sessions and 6 Community AMAs or external events/Twitter spaces.
• Reach 200 followers on the YouTube channel. Continue to support other teams such as social media, governance, and ambassadors with content.
• Twitter followers over 1000 this epoch

The remaining deliverables are not very measurable:

• Build stronger continued collaboration with the Risk Labs team to understand priorities and assist with those efforts.
• Search out more audiences and elements inside and outside DeFi to amplify the message of making market access universal.
• Slowly but surely strive towards self sustenance through partnership building and smart investment of liquid funds.

The SuperUmans community is a key differentiator to UMA DAO and we should continue to support their monthly salary requirements. In addition to this I think we should launch KPI options for the above goals.

The existing salaries are pretty good (not too low / not too high).

• $406/month for SuperUMAns
• $821/month for Core SuperUMAns
• $1524/month for UMAster

I’d prefer smaller scoped funding requests (e.g. salary funding request, KPI option funding request, etc) vs one giant funding request where it’s hard to measure everything the funds would go towards.

Is there a breakdown for what “Operational expenses” are?

Regarding: “With a new User Interface nearing release, cooperation with the Education team to teach fellow Ambassadors LSP contract deployment skills is our main goal.”

A lot of these goals are very internally focused vs externally. I’d like to see us make this UI more production-ready from a design / usability standpoint as well as from a utility standpoint (ie. have this be the main way internal and external teams deploy contracts).

It feels like we are missing a step in this funding request. There should be an alignment step before the funding request where the Community and SuperUMAn DAO align on goals / needs. Then scope a funding request after there is more alignment on a unified vision with goals that will make the most impact for the value invested.

[JBdiscord]

I support this proposal because I’m confident the SuperUMAns do and can provide a TON of value to UMA. They offer a massive ecosystem of talent for UMA to tap into and can essentially help in all areas. I actually think the UMA team needs to lean into the SuperUMANs more, there is so much more they can do and if UMA reached out more I think they’d get even more.

[kevin]

I’m a big supporter of SuperUMAns and recognize all their amazing accomplishments. I also enjoy working with them and had the pleasure of meeting a bunch of them in person - awesome folks! I am all for funding the SuperUMAn DAO; however, I think this proposal needs refining and resizing. I think all the discussion is extremely helpful and I share some of the concerns that @mrice32 highlighted.

A couple of things to add or think about.

1. How do we size a proposal like this? If the number requested was 15k, 50k, 200k, or 500k $UMA I think most people would just blindly say yes this is as a supporter. How do we justify it and if it’s 85k for this proposal what would it be for the next proposal and the proposal after that? Is there a long term plan?
2. To address #1 I think we do need more measurable metrics and ambitious ones to justify a large request like this. Similar to what others have said already.
3. A large portion of these funds are used for compensation - 55k $UMA out of of the 85k. That’s a decent chunk and as Matt has highlighted is comparable to a whole project team like Risk Labs. I should have looked at this closer previously, but it looks like this provides salaries/stipends for ~150 people. Is this efficient? I thought a smaller core group that is compensated and distributing grants to people to perform tasks seems more effective instead of paying a large group regardless of whether something is done (probably something I should have looked at previously). And is this 150 number capped? what stops it from growing and this expense balloons more?

I think the proposal needs revision and further discussion.

[nicholaspai]

This discussion is so awesome to see developing in real-time. For context, I am employed at Risk Labs as a smart contract engineer. I think the SuperUMAns have been critical to UMA’s success up until this point, but I think the proposal needs to be revised before I can comfortably vote YES on this. Ultimately, I think the SuperUMAns should receive more funding but the details should be refined. I mostly agree with @kevin 's sentiment but I want to make it more concrete to help progress this discussion towards a resolution in which the SuperUMAns get funded.

What the SuperUMAns contribute from my perspective:

• Maintain cross-DAO relationships that enhance UMA’s brand, most notably with ShapeshiftDAO
• Some part time contributors have leveled up to full-time contributors and have even been hired to Risk Labs
• Developed one of the first instances of a real DAO in the wild
• Amplify marketing and advertising for UMA’s products and value
• Overall, just contribute a lot of work for UMA and the enthusiasm for UMA’s products are invaluable

If I were to tell anyone what value the SuperUMAns add to UMA, then I would say: “SuperUMAns are a decentralized sales/business-development/operations force for UMA”. To this end, SuperUMAn DAO should be paid like any other contributor to UMA and I think comparing them to Risk Labs is reasonable. Requested revisions to the proposal:

1. Funding amount: 85k UMA (approx. ~$550,000) for a quarter is too high, this would be the equivalent of 10 senior-level sales people earning ~$200,000/year. I think a fair target is to treat SuperUMAns as the equivalent of 3 risk labs senior executives. I’m sure you’re thinking that equating the SuperUMAns to 3 senior employees is unfair, but I think its reasonable to say:

• 1 senior employee focused on marketing can gain 1000 followers on Twitter, 200 followers on YouTube, set up 8 learning sessions, 6 community AMA’s, and “Search out more audiences and elements inside and outside DeFi to amplify the message of making market access universal”.
• 1 senior employee focused on business development can achieve 6 UMA product integrations with other DAO’s
• 1 senior employee focused on treasury management and ops can invest the treasury smartly and be a liason to risk labs

2. Delivery of payment: instead of granting UMA, we should grant KPI options. This is my idea and I’d love to have this picked apart! The KPI options should expire at full value based on tangible KPI’s being hit. For example, let’s say there are the following selection of KPI’s to hit, each with weights listed below. At the end of the quarter, the max score for the KPI options to deliver full value is 80 points. Each of the following KPI’s can deliver up to a maximum of the number of points its listed under, for example, if UMA TVL expires at $400mil, then that category will earn the option (400 / 500) * 25 = 20 points. If the KPI option expires with 60 points achieved out of a maximum score of 80 (from a pool of 100), then the option should pay out (60 / 80) = 75% of the maximum payout.

• 25 points: UMA TVL equal to $500mil
• 25 points: Mew integrations with DAO’s that have in aggregate over 10,000 followers on their official twitter accounts
• 10 points: 1 new full-time hire to Risk Labs
• 2 points: UMA twitter followers reach 100,000 followers
• 2 points: Across twitter followers reach 30,000 followers
• 2 points: SuperUmans twitter followers reach 5,000 followers
• 2 points: Design and deliver NFT project to reward UMA users and give them access to higher levels of rewards within the UMA system
• 14 points: Help produce artwork and “lore” to advance the UMA brand (TBD how to measure this but this is an example of something I’d love to see)
• 5 points: Get UMA listed as collateral on Aave, Compound, or MakerDAO
• Total: 100 points

To emphasize my point once more, I think the KPI’s originally listed by @EAsports are not ambitious enough for the funding amount requested. See point 1, but I think either the KPI’s need to be more ambitious, the funding amounts needs to be decreased, or a combination of both. Thoughts?

[ChandlerDeKock]

I want to start by saying what a milestone to get to where proposals like this are being discussed. Truly amazing to see the growth of UMA and the community.

I’ve worked closely with the SuperUMAns ever since their founding days, so a lot of my response is based on intimate workings in the trenches with the ambassadors. My overall take is that I would support a funding proposal but not in the current form. Let me get into the details/changes.

While I think the purposes of the DAO are very aligned with UMA, I think putting more ambitious critical metrics behind the proposal brings accountability. The accountability here is to prompt the SU DAO to be daring and push for a grand goal, and even if the DAO does reach that goal because it will be a stretch, in the process, they learnt a lot about their potential and created a lot of value.

I echo the sentiments of the others when they say the bang for the buck is slightly off. Either the proposal needs to find additional funding to support the structure or find a way to increase the deliverable value.

I am also interested in hearing about the longer-term funding plan for the DAO and its plans UMA DAO funding going forward. I think having this be a one and done proposal for the size of funds also limits the longevity of continued funding over a more extended period. My suggestion would be to lower the ask now, set a 3-6 month goal and propose another financing round for supplementary funding later based on the outcomes of the period. I also like the SU DAO is looking elsewhere for financing.

So in summary. I support the direction of this proposal, and my suggestions are based on making sure the SU DAO can reach a higher potential and look longer term.

I’d also suggest a community AMA to talk through some of points in this thread.

[Britt]

I’ve been unable to effectively keep up with everything happening in the SU DAO, but I’m really impressed with the extensive summary in the Value Add section of this proposal. It is clear to me that the SU DAO is a necessary component of the UMA ecosystem, and I really strongly believe that the UMA DAO should continue to fund the SU DAO.

That being said, I’d like to see some more critical analysis and forward-looking detail in this proposal before it proceeds to snapshot. I see that @inalittlewhile and @gruadus provided some additional context in the comment section, but there are several flagged items that should probably be addressed.

Some areas of discussion that come to mind for me:

• What are the potential drawbacks of this approval? What’s missing or undefined at this time? (I’m skeptical of any proposal that doesn’t take a look at potential consequences)
• What has been learned from things that didn’t go well last quarter and what actions are being taken to try and avoid those things going forward?
• What actions are being taken to create a more self-sustained treasury? What revenue streams are being pursued?
• Can/should our deliverables be more concentrated or tiered? I think that building our Twitter and YouTube following helps result in some other, more important, KPIs. I’d like to see more focus on the big picture stuff with some sense of priority and supplemented detail on how we use smaller metrics to help us get there.
• This proposal is to the UMA DAO, but it’s clear to me that there are some Risk Labs dependencies here. In many ways the SU DAO has been a marketing extension of RL. So, if I was a UMA token holder that had no ties to RL or SU, why do I want to support this proposal? I don’t see this as a weakness of this proposal specifically, but I think this is an opportunity to more clearly define the benefits to each of these entities.

My recommendation would be to withdraw this proposal, make any appropriate amendments, and resubmit.

[david]

I think theres a different way to frame this problem. A lot of people are thinking about increasing measurability of outcomes to ensure value for the UMA spent, which i think makes a lot of sense.

There is a missing element from the equation which makes this cost calculation extremely error prone though, and sort of gets to the heart of what Kevin (and others) are saying: There is no ROI for the UMA DAO on the UMA spent, that’s just not possible because the UMAns do not have a directive to make a profit. Without an expectation of profit, you cant really calibrate the amount your are spending in a non arbitrary way ( see economic calculation problem).

To be clear, I’m not advocating for a profit making mechanism. It makes sense that we could come up with clever (non profit based) metrics, but you still run into that problem of having to justify and come to consensus on a particular number to spend, which again would be contentious. I think though maybe we can side step this issue by looking at this from a different angle.

The thing we are really getting out of proposals like this is a fair way to distribute UMA tokens, any other quantifiable positive outcome is really just icing on the cake. We want people who are highly engaged, responsible, industrious, etc, to have these tokens, and putting it in the hands of super UMAns is clearly one of the best ways achieve that. By creating measurable deliverables and conditions, we maximize the probability of getting the UMA into worthy hands, especially if deliverables can be hit, so that is all good.

If we humor this train of thought for a minute we can think of ways to amend this proposal to achieve these ends ( distributing uma to the most worthy). This reframes the problem to “how do we define what “worthy” means”, and “how do we measure that to compensate them accordingly”. What this also does is allows us to not focus on costs to achieve particular goals, but rather, we can consider a regular emission rate and distribution schedule, where we just focus on creating goals and metrics to get the UMA into the most worthy hands based on the emission rate currently set. A UMA distribution schedule and individual compensation mechanism may be easier and less contentious than what we are doing now as figuring out the value as payment for services, but i guess that’s debatable!

TLDR: it may be easier to come to consensus if we frame this problem as a distribution schedule, with a proposed way to distribute it pro rata amongst the most productive UMAns.

[EAsports]

This discussion is encouraging and I appreciate the supportive and constructive feedback. While I recognize this process may take more time and effort than originally anticipated, I look forward to a stronger mutual understanding of perspectives, aligned goals, and a ratified proposal coming out of this.

Recognizing the poll ends soon and in the spirit of collaboration and desire to build broader consensus, I will be withdrawing the poll to allow for additional discussion, collaboration, and refinement of the proposal before re-polling.

I like @ChandlerDeKock 's suggestion for a community call or AMA to discuss this further and think it could be helpful to share perspectives and to workshop this a little more. I would be interested if others agree.

Over the next couple days, I would encourage others to add any additional thoughts and feedback that we can incorporate into discussion and a refined proposal. Thank you.

[EAsports]

I am not sure if this will be valuable in the future or the historical ability of capturing this information from the discourse platform, but wanted to post the data from the initial poll so we have it as context in case it is helpful

[nicholaspai]

TLDR: Have we considered an UMA Grants program?

This is a thought provoking framing of the issue at hand but I don’t fully understand the distribution schedule idea, can you flesh that out more? I think one takeaway from your post is that assuming we can come up with “what is worthy of UMA funding” and “how we measure the worthiness of actions”, the last step is to figure out a way to reward actions’ worthiness.

What if instead of evaluating these one-off funding requests we instead set up an UMA grants program where the DAO allocates $X to fund ecosystem development. The DAO could allocate slices of that $X to fund different goals such as

• Front end tooling
• Back end tooling
• Marketing
• Growth
• etc.

And each of these goals would have specific action items:

• Marketing:
  • Gain 1000 twitter followers
  • Produce educational video on YouTube

There would be an application form where the candidate, such as the SuperUmanDAO could request funding to work on solving some of the areas of need for the UMA DAO. The UMA voters could then more easily evaluate a funding request:

• Is the candidate attempting to solve a problem that the DAO wants to be solved?
• Do we think the candidate will be able to solve this problem?

I’m thinking if it was more clear what was worthy to UMA, then requests for funding would meet less resistance since it would be more obvious from the outset what was a valid request for funding (and amount to ask for).

Some other DAO grants that have inspired this post:

• UniswapGrants.org
  • Example: Uniswap Grant round 5 - as you’ll see in the other examples, they list out categories of projects to fund which is helpful if you’re looking for funding
• Aave grants
• Balancer grants - also worth checking out the subDAO section here which is a more narrowly-focused version of SuperUMAns
• Compound grants - Check out the " What’s eligible for grant funding" section
• Lido grants - I particularly like the “Grants Classifications” section
• Optimism retroactive public goods funding

[TheRealTuna]

SuperUMAns are the army that is going to help grow UMA into a worldwide financial infrastructure and one of the biggest crypto protocols in the world. We need to meet all of our targets to reach the maximum payout here and I believe we can do that. We had to put a lot of efforts into building a DAO last quarter and now can focus on trying to get 10+ integrations in a quarter. Without these integrations the hard work of Risk Labs employees would not be as impactful. Comparing the best case scenario max payout to over 100 contributors to the salary of 24 employees is not a fair comparison in my opinion. We are UMA voters as well and share the same dreams for UMA. We put a lot of hours into this and our compensation is mainly commission based so it is not guaranteed. I feel we should proceed with the proposal as is so that the SuperUMAns can get to work but we can definitely improve things and make sure UMA is getting the best value possible going forward. I appreciate your feedback as it challenges us to work harder towards our shared vision.

[poopster]

Hey Matt thanks for your input, it brings a lot of things to light that we may not have previously considered. There’s one prevailing issue that really stands out to me from reading your reply which will likely be much different than most of the other replies. Although we only very recently launched the super uman dao, we have been a thriving community for the better part of a year now. Many of us have been effectively working for Uma since then for what amounts to much less than minimum wage. Many of us have dedicated a large portion of our time and effort to help increase awareness and adoption of what Risk Labs has built. In that time I’ve had the privilege of getting to know and work along side several of risk Lab’s employees. However, after reading your reply it really highlighted one area that we have failed as a community and that is building relationships and even just keeping Risk Labs informed of what we are building here. I completely understand that RL is made up of 25+ people with 25+ personalities and that not everyone is going to share the same interests. That being said, i think it’s extremely unfortunate that for a year now the Super Umans have been working alongside RL and yet we have real working relationships with very few RL employees. Many of the Uma token holders not employed by RL may not have the opportunity to get involved with the super umans or even know that we exist. Engaging them will be another task altogether but in my opinion we should first focus on building out a relationship with our de facto coworkers.
Going forward I’d really love to see more of a working relationship between RL and the SU dao and it’s something I’m going to set as a personal goal. No doubt Risk Labs has been invaluable to the super umans and we have learned so much from the interactions that we do have with RL. Kevin was instrumental in helping us establish guidelines for or treasury. Mhairi was a HUGE part of helping us build/form the dao. Clayton has been instrumental in helping us build our community and helping us set goals to strive for. I understand not all RL employees have the time or inclination to work with us but at the very least i feel like we can do a better job of keeping them all up to date and informed of what we are doing. As ambassadors are the life blood of our organization i feel like we can do a much better job of being ambassadors to our founding organization. I know this is WAY off topic but i wanted to thank you for bringing this to light.
One other thing, i don’t think you can compare Risk Labs to the Super uman dao. So while i understand the gist of what you are getting at, i do not think it’s a great comparison. I do appreciate all you brought to light though because it gives us a great POV of an outsider and what we may need to do to be more transparent and deliberate.

[Chase]

Recognizing the poll ends soon and in the spirit of collaboration and desire to build broader consensus, I will be withdrawing the poll to allow for additional discussion, collaboration, and refinement of the proposal before re-polling.

I appreciate this. I think there is a lot of support for getting a version of this funding proposal approved, but there have been some good questions raised. I don’t want to “pile on” additional questions because I think most of the things that I would ask about have already been asked – As @ChandlerDeKock and @EAsports mentioned, lots of these questions are likely to be easiest to address via in an AMA (and maybe we can get some of the answers transcribed for reference).

The one point I would like to make is that I think it is worthwhile to be thorough on this particular request. The main reason that I think this is valuable is that this is the first (I think?) funding request made to UMA DAO. This means that all funding requests going forward should mimic the precedent that we set here (and, given the nature of the relationship between UMA DAO and the SuperUMAns, I think it’s fitting that this precedent is set by the SuperUMAns). I’d like us, as UMA DAO members, to be thoughtful in creating a path for how other organizations (that we might not be as comfortable with) should approach this type of a funding request.

Thank you for bringing this proposal forward and I hope we can vote on a refined version of this proposal soon.

[mrice32]

There has been a lot of really great back-and-forth here. I appreciate all the feedback and replies.

@inalittlewhile, I really appreciate your detailed ideas on metrics. I don’t quite understand your point about the social metrics not being modest if viewed organically. Can you explain? Why are organic followers hard to find? And what’s the reasoning for preferring organic growth over using professional tools and strategies to achieve social growth?

I’m not aware of the specifics regarding the sale, but I agree with you that this is probably something that wouldn’t repeat given what you and @gruadus said. In the future, I hope these funding events can be structured in a way that doesn’t put the DAO in a position of having to quickly sell assets to meet liabilities.

@gruadus thanks for the deeper explanation of the financials. This is very helpful just for my understanding!

@kevin I really agree with your point around justifying this size as opposed to other sizes.

@TheRealTuna and @poopster I really appreciate your feedback, especially your points of disagreement. I have a few points I want to make:

1. The SuperUMAns have done wonderful work so far! I am not trying to minimize that. I’m a big fan of the idea of retroactive funding, so it would be great to see a retroactive funding proposal if the SuperUMAns feel like they’ve made contributions previously that were under-compensated. I’m totally unfamiliar with past compensation models, so I’m definitely open to hearing more about issues with that. I do, however, think these proposals should be separate (and I am very supportive of both!!!). This request, by my understanding, is meant to be for future compensation and funding. It’s hard to evaluate if it’s also meant to pay or make up for compensation for past work.

2. While I personally love working with the SuperUMAns and wish I were able to do more of it, I think the answer is not to have the SuperUMAns spending more time trying to keep Risk Labs informed of what they’re doing. I think that’s part of the point of it being a DAO with its own treasury – they should only be accountable to the UMA tokenholders. I also think the SuperUMAns have more important things to do! @poopster I’m not disagreeing with building deeper personal connections or our status a de facto co-workers. I do agree with that part. I just don’t want the SuperUMAns feeling like they need to spend more time “selling” their work to Risk Labs.

3. @kevin makes a great point above around sizing. In my opinion, the fact that this grant is short-term means that the numbers are directly derived from the SuperUMAn DAO’s expected liabilities. I think a larger, but longer term grant would allow this to be focused around the goals of the grant, giving the SuperUMAn DAO more flexibility to manage their liabilities internally. A treasury that lasts a quarter isn’t really a treasury and quarterly funding means that the DAO is incentivized to use the grant money in its entirety over a short horizon.

4. Related to 3, I think it’s justified to compare Risk Labs expenditures and the SuperUMAns. These organizations don’t serve the same purpose or do the same thing, but I do think that when it comes to “bang for buck”, it’s important to think about achievements of organizations with comparable budgets. I do want to point out, however, that Risk Labs does have compensation models outside of short-term salary payments, which is why I proposed that the SuperUMAns use longer term incentives to augment their existing compensation models.

5. A common point I’ve seen in this thread is that the SuperUMAns are a DAO of over 100 people. I think this is a great achievement (every time I think about it it blows my mind!), but from an efficiency perspective, an organization that large comes with a lot of challenges, as you probably know better than I do. Coordination costs are painful. A DAO of 100 people, most of whom aren’t full time, means that per hour of work, the SuperUMAns have to pay 2-4x as much in coordination costs as an organization with the same salary budget where everyone is full time. This is a huge challenge. My point in trying to center the discussion around salary budget vs achievements is to push on this efficiency challenge. I have complete confidence that the SuperUMAns are and will continue to provide a lot value for UMA tokenholders and that UMA tokenholders will vote to fund the SuperUMAn DAO. However, incentives are important, and as an UMA tokenholder, I think being focused on the achievements and costs will incentivize the SuperUMAns to be efficient as the organization grows.

Thanks again for all the thoughtful responses and comments!

[Lana]

Hi all, I want to start this off by saying how impressive it has been watching the SuperUMAn DAO grow. As a former SuperUMAn myself, and now Communications Manager employed at Risk Labs, it makes me happy to see such a detailed discussion here. With that being said, I do have some comments/concerns regarding the deliverables here.

Side note: These opinions are my own as an UMA token holder. I do not speak for Risk Labs or others employed at Risk Labs.

My comments come from a social media management/marketing perspective. I agree with similar comments above regarding the deliverables of 1000 Twitter followers and 200 Youtube subs seeming a bit underwhelming. Even looking at this from an organic approach (no paid ads strategies) I think this could be much higher given the audience that’s attainable, especially considering the Twitter already has 788 followers.

In addition to this issue, I would like to raise a question – what is the strategy behind one of the main deliverables being followers on the SuperUMAn Twitter and subs for Youtube? Is this for recruitment purposes? If the strategy is recruitment, would there be a way to instead track those who join SU DAO from learning of the SUs on social media? And to Britt’s point above: If I was a UMA token holder that had no ties to RL or the SU DAO, why do I want to support these recruitment efforts?

If the strategy is purely awareness of the SU DAO:
Once again – If I was a UMA token holder that had no ties to RL or SU, why do I want to support awareness efforts coming from the SU DAO Twitter/Youtube? If the strategy is awareness, I would say the follower count goal needs to be higher than the goals of 1000 and 200. I also think there needs to be goals for both impressions and engagement rates if the goal is tracking awareness.

In addition to my comments above, I also agree with other comments regarding granting KPI options rather than UMA. Specifically, @nicholaspai’s point system seems to make a great deal of sense.

[poopster]

Hey matt thanks again for the thoughtful reply. I think perhaps i did not do the best job of phrasing what i was trying to say. You’re right, we do not need to spend more times informing RL of what we are doing. I do wish there was a better working relationship between the SU dao and RL though. I think if that relationship were a little better we would not have a situation like this where we have been working to support RL and Uma yet most of the people we are here supporting have little to no idea what we are doing. I think a better working relationship would foster an environment that would help facilitate the aligning of our goals/mission here. Again, i know this is way off topic but i do hope it can lead to us working more closely together to achieve our common goal. thanks for hearing me out