I think setting it as a % of the funding for discretionary/strategic initiatives that the ESD receives from the main dao would make more sense than an absolute value. That way, we aren’t capping financial incentives that can be awarded to the community and they are more proportional to the funds received by the ESD.
I will clarify in the statement that
- Process: As per request for funding Noting that this is the ESD funding request process and more information will need to be developed for MainDAO proposals
- Fee: people are encourage to request a payment that they believe they have earned, which will be open to negotiation with the ESD. We [ESD] intend to adapt the funding based on what we learn from the scout rewards requested in S1
This program is designed around funded proposals to link compensation to performance.
We seek to incentivise proposals that meet strategic priorities. I do not believe it is financially prudent to pay people just for posting in the forum and I certainly do not want to incentivise random posts.
However, other types of governance proposals could be compensated - subject to funding of the current request for strategic funding.
Finance, governance, tokenomics are all listed as priorities for discretionary funding which allows authors to access this program.
This proposal was drafted using % allocations, which I preferred however the design presented accounts for the feedback of fellow ESD team members that
- rewarding % might negatively incentivise the creation of proposals that maximise author reward
- to enable people to request a fee that more accurately reflects their time and effort (not all proposals are equal)
The hard cap at 5k is both a signalling mechanism (bounds) and for budgeting. This can be increased if required subject to approval of our discretionary funding request
really stoked about this concept… i see it as a way to build our community and address some short term staffing needs
The scout program fee request has been updated
20k budget request for the Scout Program is set at 5% proportionate to the total 360k discretionary funding plus other 40k strategic funding requested by the ESD season 1.
Just to clarify, do you mean to have the reward per proposal contribution as % instead of having an absolute cap or do you mean to have the total budget for rewarding proposal contributions as % of the ESD budget instead of having an absolute cap.
I have opposition to the first, not the second
In the updated model, people can still request a fee that they feel is commensurate with their effort capped at the lesser of
- 5% of funded value or $3000
The 20k season 1 budget is also capped and proportionate to 5% of the discretionary and strategic budget (excluding scout program) so 5% of 400k =20k
I am assuming people will typically claim the maximum 5% or 3k however this remain open to negotiation and ESD approval I want to avoid creating a one size fits all model without blowing the budget.
This program necessitates improved transparency around our funding to avoid a situation where scout rewards exceed the available budget.
The great unknown here is the value of unforeseeable main DAO proposals, although to date the author is usually rewarded within the proposal and therefore not eligible for scout funding.
For Main DAO proposals without a $$$ value we have capped charter adaptation to a budget of 10k season 1 with a fixed reward of $500.
Further funding is also available to SubDAO members under the 60k strategic development
EDIT: Requested update to formalise recent mention of this process
I think it makes sense for this season while contributors get used to the mechanism and start requesting the funding themselves.
Same as Ivan. Makes sense for this season.
Moving forward the scouting programme feels like a band-aid solution and could perhaps be replaced by the coordinate circle for decentralising governance.
Both Anson and I worked with Blossom Labs (EVMcrspr) lobbying to get their proposal up and approved along with discussions and review. I request a total of $2k to be split between both Anson and myself on this
Dear ESD Team: @lee0007 @fartunov @daniel-ospina I would like to officially request $3000 for the Aragon Ukraine Response WG Proposal Aragon Ukraine Response WG Proposal. The proposal was, in my opinion, a success in bringing a wide variety of opinions from both the DAO & AA/AL together to respond to a huge global event. Through varying opinions I crafted the proposal to have a positive impact on Aragon and the entire DAO space and spoke with 25+ different stakeholders. Some of the benefits outside of the donation include deeply involving three external DAOs: UkraineDAO, Unchain, & Giveth (creating ecosystem interaction). The bounties have attracted the most attention of Aragon posted bounties and brought in new community members, up to 15+ applications for up to 10 Dework proposals. I personally spent 30+ hours on this work outside of my scope, I posted in both the discord channel & WG notion page if anyone else would like to receive scout benefits, no one responded, and thus I would like to send a portion of the proceeds to some of the individuals who spent time helping, including: @luizfernandosg (10%), @AClay (5%), @Harry (2.5%), Anson (2.5%) & @b3n (2.5%). I will donate another 2.5% either through Gitcoin or Giveth. Edit: As per the requests below: Alex, Harry, Ben, & Anson will donate their shares along with my 2.5% to Giveth or Gitcoin. Those funds can be sent to me and I will donate them and send a receipt to them.
Thanks you, please don’t hesitate to reach out for any more information.
@Anthony.Leuts could you please donate anything you think should go to me, instead to go along with your donation to Gitcoin or Giveth?
Approve 2/3 cc @Ricktik6
Following with @Harry here = Gitcoin or Giveth sounds great.
And @Anthony.Leuts you’re a fucking baller
Second Harrys sentiment here, please do the same for me
@AClay noted for both of you.
Total donated 15% 450USDC to Giveth, Rotki, The Proofs, Arguments, & ZK Study Group, and finally the EUCI.
Stunning thanks @Anthony.Leuts