Financial Proposal: ESD S1 Budget Request for Discretionary Strategic & Governance Funding

These nominations seem in line with what we previously discussed. However, not sure a member of the AA should receive an additional payment for something that falls directly within their job description (as I understand it). e.g. B3n for DAO work. In contrast to mheuer paid for conflict resolution when his job is more research oriented.


1 Like

I am on board with the nominations. Feels like I am writing this again but overall I think until proposal submitters get used to applying for the mechanism it makes sense for the ESD to make some nominations. Ideally for the duration of this season - yes, we can make nominations.

I won’t discriminate between AA members and non-AA members. It’s an incentive for contributions if the individuals decide they are compensated sufficiently for their contribution through other means they can forgo it

1 Like

@fartunov @daniel-ospina in response to the ESD Compensation for March and April I would like to formally request the release of further funding to compensate to the same standard as all others have access to under this approved proposal

Charter: forum posts to provide clear and transparent guidance for DAO processes

$500 each for

  • Aragon Scout Program here
  • Strategic and Governance Funding here

The lesser of 5% or 3,OOO being 3k each for

  • 440k Continuous funding here
  • 360k New Initiatives here

For a total of 7k specifically to reward the development of S1 funding proposals and supporting documents. As the lead author of these proposals and documented processes, I wish to nominate the following contributors to this effort form a second coordinape circle to allocate these funds across the following @AlexClay @joeycharlesworth @b3n @ronald_k @fartunov @daniel-ospina @lee0007 I would further ask that all people in the circle be eligible to recieve GIVE rather than limiting the size and effectiveness of the circle


ESD General Meeting 16 May: Renee recuse/abstain from voting. No Decision due to absence. Funding decision to be made async or decided at the next ESD Meeting 30 May cc @fartunov @daniel-ospina

I am on board with the proposal.

Also would like to nominate the EVM-crisper and the authors for receiving compensation as per the scout program. I believe the proposals fit the criteria new (not repeat) funding requests/proposals that have passed and the authors have not been compensated.


Happy to support all authors that are developing proposals to the benefit of other contributors. Can we confirm please that at the time of submitting their respective proposals

@thelastjosh was not planned to recieve compensation within the funding for DAOStarOne
@sembrestels was not planned to recieve compensation within the fuding for EVMCrispr

I ask because they are both listed as team members of the proposal which I understand typically meant eligible to receive compensation.

That said

So the limitations can be adapted, provided we apply the same provision to all proposal authors since 15 March. We need to draw a line somewhere otherwise all authors could become eligible for Scout Reward which was not the intended purpose of this program and was not accounted for in the 20k budget request @fartunov where would you propose we draw the line between contributor developed proposals and independent authors?

Due to the stated limitations, I have not claimed an additional 3k funding for authoring this proposal, because at the time of writing this was the proposal under which I would receive funding.

I reference the Scout Program as the current established method, to calculate and reward proposal authors. I did however expect the requested funds to be released from the strategic development budget, as per the first coordinape circle for

Yes, confusing and overly complex and as @daniel-ospina mentions above only intended as an S1 solution until we establish improved systems for fair compensation cc @AlexClay @Ricktik6 thoughts?

1 Like

Fair point, I had forgotten about the limitation. Let’s proceed as intended.
It makes more sense for dgov circle to rethink processes from first principles and start with something simple than for us to keep bandaiding things that were designed with an expiration date in mind

1 Like

I prefer to stay aligned with the limitation, lets not reward contributors within authored proposals and draw a fair line.

1 Like

Nominating @AlexClay for the Scout Program Funding for the Bounties for leads proposal here

  • Fee Request : people are encouraged to request a payment that they believe they have earned.
  • Fee Limits : In all cases the maximum fee request must be the lesser of either 5% of value funded or $3000 .The final allocation will be open to negotiation with the ESD. Funding will not be dispersed until ESD is formally notified as per the fee notification process.

However, as I am unsure as to the extend of the crossover with roles including AA Head of Network Ops and Transparency, and AN DAO Finance Steward I will leave this to the author to self-nominate and advise here a requested amount as per the process


Thank you @lee0007 feel this was under my role. Will forgo.

1 Like

Oh I had forgotten about the DAO Star One and EVM Crisper

Exploring the limitations here, I supported @sembrestels months ago in advancing this proposal (amongst other things, developing the template for proposals that’s now in use based on the charter).

Are these supportive interactions outside of the remmit? I’m trying to understand whether @mheuer’s ones for the Umbrella would be different

1 Like

I worked with @daniel-ospina 8 months ago defining the Financial Proposal Template, so we could request funds for EVMcrispr, although who really got hooked with the proposal, helped me understand AN DAO dynamics, and scouted the proposal to the current form has been @brent and @alibama.

This is why I’d like to publicly acknowledge the value provided by these two memebers of Aragon dTech to the EVMcrispr proposal, and I nominate them to receive the rewards from the Scout Programme.

Obviously I also extend my gratitude to everyone involved in the discussions that conducted to the ultimate approval of the proposal: the ESD, the Technical Committee, the Core Team, and the rest of Aragon users who got involved in the thread. Your support and feedback has been key as well for the success of the proposal, thank you very much.


ESD General Meeting Monday 30 April UTC 1900: In regards to the request to release 7k strategic development funding as requested by @lee0007 post #14 above 2/3 support @fartunov @daniel-ospina @lee0007 recuse. This was not a stongly supported decision due to the challenges around the process which see us determining our own funding. Please refer to minutes This will be the FINAL retrospective funding request from the ESD, an approved Main DAO proposal is needed to remedy all future changes to ESD rewards.

cc @Ricktik6

1 Like

that’s super thoughtful of you! i’m genuinely flattered… your code is rad, and it’s a pleasure to be able to support developers like yourself.


if we’re gonna be 100% transparent here what i want more than $$s is a feature request :wink: is gonna be live soon & an llc’d e-commerce dao == super fun :slight_smile:

talked to @brent and agree we should put this $$s in to the @Ricktik6 coordinape bounty project to encourage more work in this space and thank everyone on the team for the work they’re doing = @lee0007 what’s the process here?

1 Like

Process here with rewards paid to whatever wallet you provide @Ricktik6

1 Like

First of all great work!
Just let me know on what address you want to receive the $3.000 Scout reward so you can delegate it yourself into a coordinape pool.

i think your proposal of getting team members and guilds to work together is right on, and would like to support that = so wherever that goes?

@Ricktik6 please read the Scout Program and the above definitions of the three funding allocation so that you are familiar with funding and not misdirecting people. Given that 3k is the maximum available to authors of proposals it would be highly unlikely that contributors would request or be rewarded the maximum.

@brent @alibama please request the value you believe you earned in relation to the EVM Crispr proposal here

1 Like

@daniel-ospina @fartunov

I would like to propose that the ESD allocate the following S1 ESD funding to dGov advisory circle Remaining funds as reported by @Ricktik6

Approved Funding Allocation USDC
Charter Adaptatng 8000
Strategic & Governance 11000

My reason for requesting this approach is

  1. consolidate multiple funding streams related to governance
  2. increase transparency for reporting on these funding allocations
  3. decentralise the current ESD responsibility to determine funding allocation through the use of coordinape circles
  4. increase the flexibility of governance funding

The funding for the Scout Program is not included in this request to reallocate funding via dGov as it intends to offer a more fixed reward structure guided by a documented process.