Collaboration proposals and tenders from Foundation
Proposal Details
Description
Foundation should publish grant proposals or tenders from their name if they want to collaborate with community members/creators to update core platform things like update/rework of default wearable models. This might be useful in future to avoid some scenarios with unexpected results. Additionally, It's clear and transparent way for community, it also creates activites between creators (challenges through tenders). Otherwise people can abuse things without providing any proofs that they work with respect and recommendation from Foundation. This is also clear way for Foundation to see feedback from community members regards creators reputation.
Voting Rationale
It might be a good idea, but I would also like more information.
Collaboration proposals and tenders from Foundation This proposal is now in status: REJECTED. Voting Results: * Yes 56% 439,996 VP (30 votes) * No 43% 342,108 VP (2 votes) * Invalid question/options 1% 1,766 VP (1 votes)
I'm not sure if I understand this or if it is just not clear enough to vote on. Can you be more specific. Thank You.
I am not sure that this is a possible solution as we cannot compel foundation to do anything. However, I do believe that we need to open discussion about restructuring our grant process altogether.. I believe the bidding and tendering process is much more effective. We as a community and core units should discuss our priorities, needs and most pressing projects, then put out bounties or proposals requesting bids from community, studios, companies, devs, etc... then we should examine each bid, and choose a service provider based on COMPETITIVE pricint as well as proof of work. I believe this will ensure that people are voting in the best interest of the platform, rather than to "support the grantee"... which has proven to be innefective in advancing our goals, and has led to massive fraud, waste and abuse.
Also, Foundation should determine expectations of grant budget for this projects.
4 Comments