Limit Grants Re-Submissions This proposal is now in status: REJECTED. Voting Results: * Yes 42% 5,095,565 VP (44 votes) * No 58% 7,013,194 VP (29 votes) * Abstain 0% 0 VP (0 votes)

What is it that makes B&T the best way for pushing "good" ideas? Who decides what "good" ideas are? What examples do we have so far as solid proof that B&T works well for the platform and community? Great proposals can take dozens to hundreds of hours to ideate and prepare for submission. Governments around the world also use bidding processes to bid out projects and vendors... from what I have seen quality and value does not typically follow. In some cases the lowest bid wins which seems like a win on paper, maybe financially for a budget but it costs more in the long run due to quality issues. In other cases, insider corruption and favoritism also leads to additional issues where the best product and value is not achieved.

Hey there! I'll try to respond the questions, but what HP said represents my reasoning very well. >Is it possible to provide more clarity on what this means? Do abstains count towards putting grants in a “minority”? What if the “Yes” to “No” percentage is 96% but there’s Abstains that push the “Yes” percentage to below 50%? **YES +50%**. Abstain votes pushing votes below 50% is a possibility. Abstaining isn't a definitive NO, but it certainly isn't a YES either. People that don't want to harm themselves or jeopardize their projects can simply refrain from voting, and that's as transparent as voting Abstain. >Having a 30% reduction automatically attached to this feels like a blanket solution that may end up hurting potential proposals more than helping them. If the main or only concern is the DAO spending itself, then are we willing to sacrifice the grant process to do so? It seems so with this additional stipulation. Resubmitting can't be costless, if 30% is too much let's find a way to define a new % that could work both ways. This is definitely not a matter of costs for the DAO, it's about unethical behavior and abusing the existing system. Not sacrificing the grant process, but increasing barriers to entry for obtaining funds from the DAO. > If I am understanding correctly, this could be good to protect the original proposal’s idea from being taken by someone else… at the same time, it limits the platform from being able to possibly use good ideas that maybe weren’t vocalized or marketed properly enough to pass with a majority. (or maybe the community felt the ideas were good but the team attempting to make the proposal could not execute… in which case someone could get wind of another’s proposal and pre-empt it with a proposal of their own that fails and prevents other proposals from happening? If so, that seems like a potential issue where someone could sabotage a hard thought out grant from somebody else or another team). Sabotage already exists, we've witnessed it lot of times and this doesn't change it for better or for worse. As HP said, **B&T** is the best way for pushing "good" ideas and having a more transparent competition.

While I agree that parts of this proposal could or would be helpful to the DAO in preventing funds and the grants program from being taken advantage of, I do have some concerns. "If the original proposal ended up with a majority voting in favor" Is it possible to provide more clarity on what this means? Do abstains count towards putting grants in a "minority"? What if the "Yes" to "No" percentage is 96% but there's Abstains that push the "Yes" percentage to below 50%? Currently some people on teams vote "Abstain" for grant proposals they are a part of, which seems like it may hurt them for doing so. This seems like a potential issue when people are being transparent. Having a 30% reduction automatically attached to this feels like a blanket solution that may end up hurting potential proposals more than helping them. If the main or only concern is the DAO spending itself, then are we willing to sacrifice the grant process to do so? It seems so with this additional stipulation. "If either the original proposal or the modified proposal are presented by any other user the 6 month restriction will apply to that user as well." If I am understanding correctly, this could be good to protect the original proposal's idea from being taken by someone else... at the same time, it limits the platform from being able to possibly use good ideas that maybe weren't vocalized or marketed properly enough to pass with a majority. (or maybe the community felt the ideas were good but the team attempting to make the proposal could not execute... in which case someone could get wind of another's proposal and pre-empt it with a proposal of their own that fails and prevents other proposals from happening? If so, that seems like a potential issue where someone could sabotage a hard thought out grant from somebody else or another team)

I vote to move this forward because I agree that it is unethical and corrupt to re-submit multiple proposals back to back in order to get them approved, and there should be a limit in the number of grant proposals one can request per quarter/year. But I do not agree that a 30% reduction in budget should be a requirement for resubmission.

[quote="lastraum, post:10, topic:22081"] * example - someone purposefully submits a grant 30% higher knowing it will get rejected. it gets rejected, they resubmit for 30% less and the community thinks it was a great job in reducing the budget and approves the concept…the 30% reduction could also change the vp requirement cliff to pass making it easier for the idea to get approved. [/quote] That's already what people do today... They ask for very stupid amount of money, get rejected, then ask for less but still stupid amount of money and people say good job... [quote="lastraum, post:10, topic:22081"] * example - someone submits something and its cool but too costly; it gets rejected. that original user leaves the platform and doesn’t come back for whatever reaons. then, what if someone else says *i can do this for % lower budget*, and they want to submit? Are we going to not allow the idea to move forward because it was originally rejected by someone else? [/quote] That's why we should try to go the Bid&Tendering way as much as possible.

Thanks for the replies. Regarding the percentage reduction, a blanket 'average' across all grants doesn't feel like the best approach. Also, could you see this being abused? This reduction in budget should be on a proposal by proposal basis. - example - someone purposefully submits a grant 30% higher knowing it will get rejected. it gets rejected, they resubmit for 30% less and the community thinks it was a great job in reducing the budget and approves the concept....the 30% reduction could also change the vp requirement cliff to pass making it easier for the idea to get approved. Regarding the alt account... * ***If either the original proposal or the modified proposal are presented by any other user the 6 month restriction will apply to that user as well.*** This statement reads that once an **idea** is rejected, it cannot be re-submitted by anyone else for 6 months? This also doesn't feel like the best approach. - example - someone submits something and its cool but too costly; it gets rejected. that original user leaves the platform and doesn't come back for whatever reaons. then, what if someone else says *i can do this for % lower budget*, and they want to submit? Are we going to not allow the idea to move forward because it was originally rejected by someone else?

Hey there! > * Where is the 30% number coming from? I think that is a huge reduction in budget for a resubmission. It's close to an average of the approved resubmissions from the last three months, but being a significant reduction is the main reason. There must be an effort from the requester. > * What is stopping a revoked user from using a different wallet to submit the same idea again? How are we defining a “user”? This could be explained as if we were talking about a "ban" from the Governance platform for submitting grants for 6 months, and alt accounts being banned because of that too. Consequently, if the same proposal is resubmitted using a different wallet, that alternative wallet will also be subject to the same restriction or "ban". ***If either the original proposal or the modified proposal are presented by any other user the 6 month restriction will apply to that user as well.*** So we could say USER = WALLET in this case. Thanks for the questions!

Couple questions: - Where is the 30% number coming from? I think that is a huge reduction in budget for a resubmission. - What is stopping a revoked user from using a different wallet to submit the same idea again? How are we defining a "user"?

Considering votes from whales that have more than 1 million VP, I believe it is a dangerous proposal that can discourage potential grantees from participating and open the path for backdoor deals.

Voted NO. I believe the current VP environment isn't sufficiently mature for these requirements. The strictness regarding percentage reductions might not be the best approach. Also there's a need for mechanisms to edit proposals.

As someone who has recieved hundreds of thousands of dollars in grant funding, please cease your whining 

The unofficial attorney will pop here anytime.

The DAO needs a 100% reset, because it seems to only help friends with grants. Or for those who merely obey the commands of the corrupt occupiers.

[quote="dao, post:1, topic:22081"] * If the grant proposal successfully passes the voting stage, the Revocations Committee will instruct the DAO Committee not to execute or establish the vesting contract associated with the grant. * In the exceptional circumstance that a grant has already passed and the vesting contract is active, immediate action will be taken not to execute the vesting contract. [/quote] Just to clarify: If a requester violates the rule without detection and the grant is approved and/or the vesting contract is active, this gives the GSS and the Revocations Committee the tools for quickly interrupting the vesting contract and revoking the grant.