Grants Committee Weekly Sept 20, 2022

 

Action Items

Accounting

(p8ul.eth to fill in)

• Bank for the remaining of the season:

• Average BANK per week left :

• Grants Committee Funding tracking
Link

Discussion

Discussion Item - Async Project Workflow

There have been some issues with the async project workflow surfaced by Grants Committee members. Let’s talk about the following:

• What are the problems?

• Is it helping us?

• Does it have potential to help us?

• What should we do next?

 

Problems

• Projects have fallen through the cracks

• When projects come to the async flow, they don’t have “good” KPIs - we could use more guidance on this before they come
+1 - struggling on defining the KPIs - there are some projects that submit entire databases as KPIs - is this acceptable?
links is against accepting databases as KPIs - we should be recording numbers for auditability and direction (i.e. record the agreement that is made between the DAO and project)
+many more GC members having this issue

• it feels like it takes longer to disburse funding

• it’s less fun

• by the time a proposal gets to voting, it doesn’t feel like all GCs are fully up-to-date on the project, at least in the sychronous flow, all GC members present get an overview
this happened in the synchronous workflow as well - it seems to be a problem outside of sync/async
sometimes lion917 wants to ask a question, but they are already covered by previous GC members. maybe we don’t all NEED to ask questions

 

Benefits

• grants committee typically handles governance “optimistically” 95% of proposals have been voted in
so are we spending too much money on this? (700K BANK) perhaps we can do it cheaper using software
is it possible to up-level our proposals, so that they are so good by the time they get to funding that they can be optimistically funded?

• it’s probably more scalable (but we don’t have the benefit of this yet)

 

2 suggestions

• did not continue a fallback in case a reviewer is MIA (so projects do not fall through the gaps)

• create an updated proposal framework that includes guidance on how to set KPIs

• add +1 meeting? so we have another hour to ask

 

DECISION: have a new weekly grants committee meeting

ACTION: lion917 will create the lettucemeet for the new meeting

ACTION: jengajojo to create the meeting on sesh

 

What do we do with projects that are currently in the async workflow?

• open polls for async discussions

• ACTION: links to open polls for ap0ll0’s two async projects that don’t have them

Discussion Item - Second Tranche Funding for S5 Projects

Disbursements are meant to go out next week, only projects who are up-to-date on KPIs will get disbursements. THIS MEANS YOU SHOULD REACH OUT TO ALL PROJECTS FOR WHOM YOU ARE A REVIEWER!

 

Projects that are currently eligible for second tranche disbursement:

• Bankless Africa

• EPA

• Newsletter Team

• The Rug (KPIs received by )

• Podcast Hatchery

 

Discussion Item - What do we do with projects that don’t submit KPIs?

links has updated

🏗️

Project List

with the following:

• new “Active?” status: Delinquent. This should be used for projects who don’t answer your request for KPIs

• Notes section where you can write down information or link to a Discord discussion

• Any project that is delinquent is no longer eligible for seasonal funding

 

Discussion Item - Supplemental Income Timing

Per comments in the Bankless Africa thread, for projects that request additional mid-season funding, how should we time this with their existing seasonal funding.

Thread: https://discord.com/channels/834499078434979890/989105371471814727/1021828411137740800

Forum post: https://forum.bankless.community/t/bankless-africa-mid-season-update-supplementary-budget/4288

 

Project: Bankless DAO & List of DAOs collab -Simple DAO Directory

Forum post: https://forum.bankless.community/t/bankless-dao-list-of-daos-collab-simple-dao-directory/4194?u=listofdaos

Speaker: p8ul.eth brings to up, johne#5671 & erinr#7860 are the champions

Ask: 105,000 BANK

 

Reason brought them up

• they have a good proposal, but they are not DAO members. In fact the funding is being asked to become members

• should only members be able to propose for funding?
we have had grants in the past approved by Guest Passes, even though the intent by the writers was to restrict proposals to members
so it’s a question of what is written/intended versus common practice

• perhaps we can just get a sponsor - senad.eth is part of this project, so this seems “good enough”

 

DECISION: all proposals must have at least one BanklessDAO member attached

 

Originally the proposal was to get 2 memberships up-front

• based upon feedback, they changed to work2earn

• they would get 1 membership up-front, and work2earn second membership

• 105K BANK - 35K to get the first membership, 70K to work2earn
when people submit links to DAOs, then some BANK goes to lister, some goes to project to earn the second BanklessDAO membership
they will update the list of DAOs, and update the DAOlationships CRM

• in general, james is against the whole “project for membership”, but this project actually requires membership to be successful

 

This is an outside entity that is asking for a collaboration - should Grants Committee be voting on this?

• it has come up in the past, but when it has come up in the past, it’s always felt strange to do it. It happens semi-infrequently that we haven’t created a process for it yet

 

KPIs

• number of DAOs listed (goal: 466)

• number of DAOs introduced to DAOlationships (goal: 466)

 

VOTE: Do you agree to fund 105,000 BANK as stated in the above proposal with the KPIs mentioned above?

• Yes: p9ul.eth, lion917, jameswmontgomery, Rene, jengaj0j0, links

• No:

• Abstain:

THIS MOTION PASSES