So how does a DAO see inside a black box funding arrangement if an audit does not make sense.
Prior Feedback
I actually prepared a sample 9 months ago of what a DAO would want to see in order to achieve minimal transparency, and provided the example in this post as feedback to the 2023 funding arrangement.
I would actually now break it into a Milestone/ Deliverable/ Cost Structure, where milestones have underlying deliverables and payment terms and are some portion of the fee is paid out contingent on deliverables. This helps to mitigate risk and ensure delivery, and is relatively standard in professional settings. This is an alternative to hourly reporting or auditing as you have suggested but will achieve similar results with less overhead (symmetric risk to both counter parties).
Again, the issue now is the absence of accountability with regards budget spend. There is no clear understanding of what will be delivered or ability to measure the performance of the arrangement, hence, this confusion leads to your (quite reasonable) anger. Yet, anger is not very productive in solving the issue.
Contributor Representations
Again, to be clear! I have an unfounded suspicion
I wouldn’t say your suspicion of Wallfacer using their time on other initiatives is unfounded. They are upfront and transparent they work on other projects and protocols some of which have adverse interests to TrueFi . The issue is that Wallfacer has not been clear regarding how much time they are committing in exchange for the compensation, and what will be delivered, or how they intend to reconcile or disclose their other commitments.
Perhaps in the next funding cycle, the DAO can begin discussion earlier in order to leave time to structure an engagement more appropriately.
Onwards and upwards.