Skip to content

3 weeks voting for grant requests

RejectedPoll

Proposal Details

Author0x0d2d…a62d
PublishedMay 08, 2024 00:30
Voting beginsMay 08, 2024 00:30
Voting endsMay 13, 2024 00:30
Snapshot#f542c19

Description

In my opinion, 2 weeks is not enough time for accurate voting on grants. I believe it would reduce the amount of revocations and increase transparency if there was an additional week to ask important questions and understand the goals of the grantee.

Voting Rationale

0x521B…8692No517,933

A two stage process might help, but just making the voting longer won't solve any issues.

0x9937…Dd1bYes502,298

Agree with DedHeadJ. There should be a 2nd step of a grant proposal to make budget/roadmap adjustments based on forum comments

0x3385…CFAFYes515

grantees usually doesn't like to answer questions by the community

7 Comments

daoMay 13, 2024

3 weeks voting for grant requests This proposal has been REJECTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xbef99f5f55cf7cdb3a70998c57061b7e1386a9b0)

daoMay 13, 2024

3 weeks voting for grant requests This proposal is now in status: FINISHED. Voting Results: * Yes 45% 3,763,146 VP (36 votes) * No 53% 4,526,037 VP (8 votes) * Abstain 1% 2,575 VP (7 votes) * Invalid question/options 1% 16,202 VP (1 votes)

dclchessMay 10, 2024

The 2 step grant process would create voter transparency to mitigate the effects of last minute voting. It would become significantly more difficult for corrupt grants to pass if the surprise voters have to declare their positions early. The poll can improve the quality of grant requests by using comments from the community to make changes. Having the 1 week poll would maintain the overall speed of the current grant process as some grants are not accepted. This quick turnaround would balance the delay for grants which are accepted. I believe the best option is to have the poll be 1 week to give the grantee as much time as possible to interact with the community. The 5 day poll for governance is valid because there is a draft that follows the poll. To keep things simple, I would not create different rules for various grant amounts. The downside to having 2 step grants is slowing down grant requests by 1 week and requiring voters to be more active. In exchange for this, the powers of corruption would be disadvantaged and we will get higher quality grants through community feedback.

PunkPinkMay 09, 2024

I think that grants should necessarily go through a poll before publishing the final proposal (or similar previous stage), although I don't think it is necessary to modify the structure of a poll from 5 days to 7 days. 5 days is enough time to get an idea of ​​the community sentiment and adding 2 days delays the delivery of the deliverables unnecessarily, in addition to adding a "poll pre-grant" section I think it is unnecessary if the "poll" option can be used directly . Although I think that this proposal is a good idea for larger projects, I also think that for small grants (less than 5000 USD) the process is too long and reduces the agility and incentive for small improvements that could be occurring. In that case I vote yes.

dclchessMay 09, 2024

Thanks for the feedback. The 3 week grant process could start with a 1 week poll which needs to pass before a 2 week grant request can be submitted.

maryanaMay 09, 2024

I like this idea @DedHeadJ! +1

DedHeadJMay 08, 2024

Hello, I agree with your thought process, but I lean toward a two-stage grant request process. The first stage should center on community discussion and sentiment. This would allow the grant requester a chance to gauge reception and, through feedback, tailor the request for the second stage should it make sense. I will vote yes to move this discussion further.