Proposal for Community Fund DAO v2

[jm9k]

@woodbury.bit

Perhaps we should compile a project review list, go over all past applications, and summarize: which ones succeeded? which ones failed? and why?

I think the sample size of data available is rather limited to make any widespread conclusions, but if you wish to lead that review in a public forum I would be willing to participate.

@woodbury.bit

The original intent of the DAO is to fund quality projects, so we should avoid a process that stops at presenting a PPT, casting a vote, and sending the funds, with almost no follow-up on project execution.

I completely agree that there is a need for accountability. This is why there is a milestone requirement and why there are several DAO Roles that are there specifically to ensure that qualified persons can conduct milestone review.

Additionally, I will be adding another soft rule to address this edge case that states that projects that receive a down payment and do not make any attempt to do the work they promised must return said funds or face legal consequences.

Unfortunately, there is no way to guarantee completely that some bad actors will not get away with some money. One party must take the initiative and offer limited trust in order to get past the initial commitment problem, and the party to take that risk will be the DAO. Past that, we must rely on the judgment of the community and representatives to make informed decisions when evaluating applicants. I would also like to produce some materials to help guide those who are new to the grant review process, but this is an effort that will come at a later time.

@woodbury.bit

Who is supposed to review the milestone? Where are the evaluation criteria?
Without these, the first payment is practically a graduation bonus.

Reviews will be conducted by appointees to the DAO Roles.

@woodbury.bit

Strictly Ban Proxy Applicants — Only Execution Teams Should Apply

As I stated in your thread, I am strongly opposed to this proposal. It introduces restrictions on normal business operations without improving outcomes.

@woodbury.bit

The Palmyra project is a textbook example.

I’ve been in contact with the ZenGate team and they are behind schedule but have full intent to move forward with their obligation. Additionally, they have been exceptionally helpful in helping to establish relationships with other teams in ways that are not visible publicly. I consider them to be one of the strongest community partnerships we have.

@woodbury.bit

I propose setting up a technical expert pool , and for each proposal, randomly select 3 experts to evaluate the technical feasibility.

Technical reviews will be conducted by appointees to the DAO Roles. I dislike the randomized aspect because it ignores the simple reality that many of the technically competent people in the ecosystem are focused on specific areas of interest. The technical reviewer will need to be determined at the time it needs to be done so we can assign the most competent person who is also available.

@woodbury.bit

My suggestions:

• Projects may apply in USD terms;
• But each fund release should be recalculated using the current CKB/USD exchange rate;
• Avoid “cutting ourselves” by paying out based on outdated low prices.

The DAO doesn’t hold stablecoins — it holds CKB.
We can’t just be afraid of price drops and neglect the risk of value loss when prices rise.

Of course, in the future we can also encourage CKB-denominated proposals, where builders and DAO share in the risks and rewards of CKB price fluctuation.

My suggestion was to allow USD or CKB accounting. Is your suggestion to only allow USD based accounting until a later date, and then open up CKB accounting?

@woodbury.bit

Split Structure: Separate Feasibility Assessment and Execution
As project volume increases — especially those over 1M CKB — I propose we separate technical & economic feasibility reviews from the execution itself.

I see the feasibility assessment as a particularly difficult one since we work in a rapidly evolving industry with many unexpected stories of success and failure. With that said, it is worth continuing the discussion on feasibility assessment to complement the technical assessment for large projects in the future.

@woodbury.bit

Require Man-Month Estimates & Per-Person-Day Cost to Prevent Overpricing

All proposals should clearly specify:

• Total man-months of work;
• Cost per man-month (or person-day);
• Whether pricing is in line with the market.

I understand the problem you are trying to solve, but I disagree with these requirements because it attempts to micromanage the business process. It is not the role of the DAO to determine how much an individual is paid per hour, nor is it the DAOs place to discriminate on teams based on their origin. The concern of the DAO is the value delivered and the cost thereof. This must be judged externally as a cost-benefit analysis for the total project.

@woodbury.bit

The inquiry stage must not become a formality. If a team can’t even answer hard questions, maybe the project isn’t solid to begin with.

The inquiry process is like a public prosecutor’s independent investigation —
no interference, no favoritism, no watering down due to “who submitted it.”

As I have stated in the past, I believe that every proposal should be scrutinized regardless of who proposed it. The community as a whole has been pretty consistent with this, but I believe it would still be beneficial to have additional materials that make recommendations to help with this process.

@woodbury.bit

In addition to technical feasibility and execution, we should consider adding economic value assessments to both the proposal and post-completion stages.

Infrastructure grants have been handled by funds outside of the Community Fund DAO. However, this responsibility will eventually fall on the community as well. I believe it will be some time before this is needed, but I do believe in the future this should be a topic of discussion.

@woodbury.bit

The DAO Should Establish a Clear Exit Mechanism for Funded Projects

Project milestone and review requirements already cover exit scenarios, except for the down payment. I believe with a few additional rules we can create better boundaries for expectation, which can then be evaluated by appointees and decided on by vote.

Thank you for the time and effort you have put into these recommendations. Even if we do not agree on all issues, I can see that you have put a considerable amount of thought into this.