hey @Aishwary92 , thanks for surfacing that the scope isn’t well defined and will try to do that here!
a) The scope of the dApp and what’s its trying to achieve which the current website can’t.
The current website (governance.0xProtocol.org) provides an interface for the current governance system - for the treasury, it reads/writes to zrxTreasury contract found here: 0x0bb1810061c2f5b2088054ee184e6c79e1591101, and for the protocol, it hosts an off-chain vote.
The RFC is for a team to design, develop, and maintain an dApp for the recently developed and deployed governance smart contracts (github repo here). In short, the main goal in developing these new contracts is to migrate 0x Protocol to fully on-chain governance and treasury to the same system. The scope as described in the post is what I believe to be the minimum set of functionalities the dApp must have to be suitable as a governance portal.
b) To scope out the type of partnership (as in if its a one time development cost or it will be a retainer that the DAO will have to hire).
I expect there two be two costs that would be included in any proposal: one time development cost and an ongoing hosting/maintenance cost. I’m not a dev so I may be wrong in this but I don’t think there’s a way for there to not be the ongoing hosting/maintenance cost but I did include that decentralized/open source hosting service as a desirable (but not mandatory) requirement.
c) From where the funds would be used in the treasury.
I’d propose that the funds would come from part of the original $1M ZRX that was used to seed the treasury as described in this 0x DAO intro post (Introducing the 0x DAO)
d) How much is the budget that is required for such development.
My original proposed process is for the teams to dictate what their required budget would be rather than defining a budget up-front. That being said, curious what you think would be an appropriate budget to assign to an ask like this.