Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
Community DAO v2 proposal discussion and debate - part 3
Recorded: July 14, 2025 Duration: 1:33:30Space Recording
Short Summary
The Community DAO V2 proposal is set to redefine engagement and grant processes, with a focus on attracting more applicants and enhancing community participation through innovative programs like the Catalyst initiative and CK Boost.
Full Transcription
Thank you. Thank you. Hey guys, just give us a minute while we wait for the others to come in and we'll get started shortly. Thank you. Thank you. All right, guys, I think we're almost ready to get going.
I'm just waiting for Jordan to get up as speaker.
I think it's an X bug thing, so just I'm a speaker now. Can you hear me all right?
Yes, we can. Great.
Yes, we can. Great.
Alright, so welcome everyone to part three of the Community DAO V2 proposal.
This is the third part in the series of discussions that we've had about a new proposal to change the way the DAO operates in a few different ways.
There is a long detailed thread about it on the Talk Nervous Forum.
I will link to that in just a second.
Really, the purpose of these discussions is to make sure the community has an opportunity
to ask questions, to analyse in detail proposed suggestions, feedback, potential changes to the new DAO proposal.
The overall aim is really to improve the way the DAO operates,
to address some of the concerns and issues with the previous DAO and really to involve the community
in a more meaningful way at every stage of the process within the DAO, especially as we come
closer over time now to the second halving, which is where really a lot of the processes and functions will be handed over to the community.
And so our governance, although we have a governance process at the moment,
will become more of a community-led, community-driven, community-accountable procedure.
So I guess we'll introduce the people who are with us today and I should also remind
everyone who's listening and the people who will join later that you can request to speak it's
really an open floor although it's me myself Kevin and Jordan who are up on the stage it's
really open to anyone who wants to participate, ask questions or offer their feedback about whatever.
It's your community. The floor is open to you pretty much.
We'll keep our discussion restricted to DAO stuff
because that's the focus of the topic today.
But yeah, anything related to that, please feel free to request the like
and we'll be happy to have you on.
With no further ado, we have Jordan with us,
who has been spearheading the new design of the DAO.
We covered quite a few topics in the past two sessions.
Jordan, where do we start this one?
This one, well, let's see.
The top one that was voted by FAR
was how to attract more applicants to the DAO.
So I think we should start there.
Okay, cool.
Yeah, so what are your thoughts about this then?
Well, this is a tough one because this is, I mean,
once we released Community Fund DAO version 1.0,
which is out there right now,
we expected to probably get a little bit more than we did.
But we've learned from this.
There's definitely a number of issues with the DAO version 1.0
that we're trying to DAO version 1.0 that we're
trying to address with version 2. But the one that stands out is why are there simply not more
applicants? I mean, obviously, there's a pile of money sitting there and anybody is available or
able to go ahead and request it, put out a proposal, but there's not a tremendous amount
of proposals. So I think it's good to go through
some of the challenges that we're noticing in attracting applicants. And one of the things
that I would say that fortunately we don't have that some of the larger ecosystems have is we
don't really have a tremendous amount of what I would call really low quality proposals.
Those are the ones that are just clearly money grabs.
And we know that some of the larger ecosystems, and I'm going to point to Polygon
as the big one because they're the one who advertised 55,000 dApps.
And we know that most of those were nothing that you needed to see.
They were such poor quality and they were not around.
They were just there to collect some money.
And to Polygon's credit, they did get a huge number
and they did get a bunch of good projects in there as well.
But there was obviously a lot of low ones.
And so we don't see that many low ones, fortunately.
But I would say with Godwoken, which was not a Dow type of system, but that had
the grants program, which was the largest one that we've had in the Nervos ecosystem to date,
a lot of the grants that we saw come through that, they did lack innovation to an extent.
I would say most of them were in the $5,000 to $10,000 range, but there was definitely a lot more grants in the $10,000 to $20,000 range that came through.
And pretty much all of them are gone today, right?
There's very few that were able to stay around.
They were generally lacked innovation.
They were mostly copy and paste projects.
And some of them were good.
I got to say some of them were good,
but they weren't able to reach
critical mass and become successful. I would say that Yokai Swap was kind of an exception because
that was a very well done site. That was a very well done project overall. Unfortunately, it didn't
really hit critical mass as well, but that one stood out to me as one that was just executed very, very well, especially with the
look and feel of the site was really quite excellent. But even that didn't manage to get
to critical mass and become sustainable. The interesting thing that we've seen is that most
of the best projects that have come through any of the grant programs have generally come through personal outreach to some extent.
And Yo-Kai Swap is an example of that one, too.
When you do just this open call, it hasn't been too successful.
And I would say that we've gained a bunch of experience in that, but Nervos being a little bit smaller, it's making the sourcing a little bit difficult because we just don't have the same gravity and reach as some of the other projects.
So they're not really hearing about the DAO program in general.
And so that's one thing that we can do better, I'm sure, with is just as a community being a little bit louder about that stuff with version 2.0 once we have more of an offering. So just the,
I mean, the marketing aspect, which is really a separate aspect, a different topic that I don't
want to get too difficult into, I'd say that that definitely is something that should be pushed more
in the future with an actual budget of some kind. Once we have proven that version 2.0 of the DAO
is actually ready to be pushed.
I don't know that we necessarily ever hit that
with version 1.0.
So I think that's one aspect
we want to definitely investigate.
But the part about real-life relationships
leading to some of the applicants coming through,
which is not just floating things out there
and hoping that some things come to you.
That is something that we really need to consider more of.
I mean, some of the more efforts that are on the Chinese side that we might not hear
as much in the West about are things like hackathons and in-person programs.
I believe they actually have one running right now that they're working on.
That has definitely generated some leads and some interest. And some of them did float through the
DAO. So I want to say that I consider that to be a success, even though the actual things that went
through doesn't seem like the community thought that they had too much benefit and didn't pass
through most of them. I mean, it definitely still did get interest in the DAO, though.
Some other sources, definitely community partnerships and things that are going on with internal community teams.
And then I also should mention the Catalyst program.
Neon, I'm going to hand it over to you.
Maybe you could just do a 30 seconds quickly on the catalyst program for anybody who's not interested who's not familiar with it
uh yeah sure so the catalyst program is um an idea where it's an initiative to empower the
community to take um more control of the ecosystem to take more responsibility for
pushing the ecosystem forward.
That's the only really long-term sustainable way for any ecosystem or project is really the community and the way the nervous community catalysts.
So I'll link to the talk forum post because it's more detailed. But the way it links to what we're talking about now, the DAO proposal, is that everyone who's on this pathway, a progress pathway,
the idea is that you have a continuing personal development plan, which will eventually lead
to a DAO proposal. The whole idea is that you're building a resume, doing things, doing productive
actions in the community, whether it's building, whether it's content creation, and you're building
that trust and that resume so that after three or six months, you can go to the DAO, you can ask for
more funding to carry on doing what you've been doing and saying, look, this is what I've been doing over the past six months.
This is the engagement I've got. That creates a much more, it creates a situation where there's more trust in the community. have been people asking to do stuff. And it's really difficult to judge
when they don't have a record of past performance.
They don't have a history in the community.
I think the community, generally speaking,
although it's quite conservative in some ways,
is much more willing to trust people
who've been around for a little while
and they have that record of experience.
So that's, in a nutshell,
what the CACIS program can do for the DAO.
Right.
So I have a question on that, which is, so what you're doing is these micro grants and you're helping people to basically build up a reputation if they don't really have much in the community at the start. Now, why is it that somebody couldn't just come in to the grant program and request a very small grant to start building up their reputation?
To the DAO specifically, I mean...
Yeah, I mean, like, instead of going through a micro grant program,
why wouldn't they go and do the same thing, request a very small amount through the existing community fund DAO?
is that there are some problems with the DAO in terms of the access,
the barrier to access grant funds is quite, it's laborious.
You have to go through two separate processes spread over at least two weeks.
And if it's a fairly small grant request,
then I guess maybe there's not as much scrutiny but it requires a lot of
self-motivation a strong idea of personally where someone is going you have to go to you know you
have to apply you have to get the 30 votes then you have to go through the through the actual
voting process itself that's quite time consuming it's like there's a lot of effort in for, you know, potentially not that much gain.
In contrast, on the Catalyst program, it's pretty much me not mentoring,
but helping people come up with, you know, what their plan should be moving forward,
how to help them in their progression.
The access barrier, the barrier to entry is much lower.
It's basically a conversation with me, for example,
and if I get the sense that they have a decent idea
or they have a decent, for example, if it's a build,
if they have a basic programming background, for example,
then I'm willing to,
you know, the threshold for joining the scheme is not as high as it would be for, you know,
getting some type of approval for a DAO grant, where I think with a DAO grant, you really need
this strong idea of what you're trying to build. And we have a lot of people in the community who
have like basic programming experience, but they're not quite at the level of, you know, I can build a fully fledged application on CKB or something like that.
So I think the Catalyst bridges that gap slightly when it comes to someone who's a beginner.
So people who are on the Catalyst program are definitely not the finished article.
on the Catalyst program are definitely not the finished article and my job is to kind of help
people get to that and that will hopefully ideally funnel more grant proposals. So already
like people who are on the Catalyst program, I'm already talking to a number of them about like,
you know, by month, for example, if they're billed is by month three they can make a,
they should be able to make like a very basic type of application then it's like okay now how do we get you from there kind
of being more um understanding of like what the process is on github or what the process is for
like what good practicing for good developer practices for example uh just building them up
up to a point where they can start to say okay i, I'm more confident now to kind of go to the DAO and ask for something.
So I think, again, I've kind of rambled on a little bit,
but in a nutshell, I would say that the threshold,
the barrier is much, much lower to join the Catalyst program.
And there's much more personalized guidance.
I think it's far less daunting than like, you know,
going to having to face scrutiny
on the DAO proposal, for example.
Right, right, yeah.
So those challenges are definitely real.
And of course I've experienced those
in my dealing with teams as well.
And so let's put an attack in that for a minute
and we're gonna come back to that.
But I wanna switch a little bit to, again,
what can we do to inspire more people to come into the more people to apply to the DAO?
And I think this is going to come down to two community roles, which would maybe they've either been part time or full time.
It kind of depends. The first one is grant evangelist, which is basically business development of some kind.
And so this is to identify and recruit external teams and try to get them to come in into the DAO.
Now, this is an interesting topic because we've had full-time business development people in the past.
And that's at the Nervous Foundation. And there was some big successes.
And I would say that there was definitely some shots that got missed with that.
And a lot of the things that missed, I think, was just wrong time or the certain parts of the development platform just weren't ready yet.
They weren't ready for prime time when the people were making a push.
And so sometimes their efforts really were a little bit ahead of schedule.
And when they're trying to do that, they're really trying to do the impossible, right?
How do you onboard teams to build on a platform that isn't ready to be built on yet?
So a lot of that just depends on what was going on at the time and where it was.
And so certain types of things, because of the complexity of development, some things were available to build and some things were not quite ready.
And it was difficult for teams to navigate that.
Business development people, they're typically not always the most super technical.
development people, they're typically not always the most super technical. So it's difficult for
them to be able to give accurate descriptions to teams that want to be built on, can they actually
do this today? Yes or no. But shifting more back to the future, what would we want to do? Would we
actually want to have full-time roles or would we want to do something that's more commission roles where
maybe there's a percentage of the grant amount goes to community members who are able to refer
teams. Now, both of these things have been talked about in the past, and I'd say both of them are
actually viable to an extent, but there's certain challenges with that, like with commission only roles,
there's a tendency to have a lot more projects come through that are low quality because your incentive is not towards, is not necessarily towards getting purely good projects, it's
towards getting a project, right? And we see this in multiple different industries. The headhunter industry
is pretty notorious for this. Trying to find applicants for job positions, they throw people
at anything, pretty much. If anybody looks like they might be an applicant, the recruiter will
throw them at this company trying to get their commission, right? They don't really
know too much about these people. I've been in that system as well and was rather shocked at
how little vetting they actually did. They know that they have to get things in fast to have any
chance about getting a commission, and that's what they do. So that's a danger in having a
commission-only role, but it does save a lot of money, I would say, as long as there isn't too much overhead from
junky projects.
So, I mean, maybe there's a middle ground that we could approach with something like
that in saying that if you send through more than three projects a month that are rejected,
you're not eligible for the programmer anymore, right?
You can't get your commissions or something.
Try to encourage a little bit of quality over quantity in that regard.
The other option is, of course, to do a full-time role, but those are typically a little bit
more expensive and harder to fill with somebody who's genuinely understanding of
our nervous ecosystem and its needs and it's it's um and it's uh what's beneficial to for growth but
at the same time maybe they could do more maybe um maybe they would actually be able to have more
success in that if they were more consistent with it um drawbacks to that is
they they we don't it's it's like it's a mixed bag like i said before the business development
people in the past that we've had working for nervous some of them had some success some of
them had less success and it's really difficult it's it's also very difficult to gauge the um
performance of these unless you hire multiple and you actually are
able to look. But this is one where the community would ultimately be responsible for deciding
whether or not these people continue to be funded. And just in my experience, it's a pretty difficult
one to make that call on if they've. Are they actually doing their role well?
Is it actually providing significant benefit to the community to justify cost?
Or is it simply just, you know, are they wasting their time?
Are they wasting funds?
Because it's sometimes difficult to get these very good projects
to come to an agreement on what they're willing to accept
in a grant proposal.
So if anybody has anything to say about that,
please go ahead and chime in here.
Otherwise, I'll just continue going on to the next role.
So the next one is a little bit of more. Okay, go ahead, Neon.
Yeah, I was just going to say, so what you've mentioned, yeah, I think it is a dilemma because
you do want to have people who are actually, I mean, there should be a formal role. And if a person is going to put their time into
that role, then there may be an expectation for some type of like, you know, a wage of some sort,
for example. But personally, I lean more towards a commission based because of the fact that
what matters is the result. Okay, you can argue the fact that if a person is on a salary or a wage
and the output isn't there, the successful referrals to the DAO, for example, are not there,
then they can be changed, for example, the community can vote to change that role, for instance.
I think with a commission basis, number one, the cost is lower.
You can address the issue of low-quality proposals or low-quality teams by just saying that the commission is paid
out on a successful community approval.
So that team, that project will have been vetted and approved by the community, after
which the payout is due.
So I think that type of thing kind of takes the, maybe the responsibility of the person,
of the evangelist, for example. But it's a dilemma either way, really. I've kind of,
personally, I've tried to address this by putting out bounty, for example, of, you know, $750 or whatever for anyone who can you know refer a suitable team but I think
what it requires is that like as you said it has to be the right team at the right time and if it's
the right team at the wrong time for example then like you know things don't always line up um but it also requires a certain
set of skills with an evangelist they have to know really what they're looking for if you're
kind of going out there and just talking to like you know um evm developers or projects kind of
from completely different ecosystems then the match it's like yeah you could pretty much talk
to anyone if you wanted to,
but the kind of the matching approach, the matching philosophy, the matching
various aspects isn't really there. And, you know, one of the things that one of the challenges
you mentioned is that we don't really have a massive influx of developers on CKB, and that's
for quite a few reasons.
Ultimately, it's due to money and due to user activity, those types of things.
But those aren't particularly issues that we can solve straight away.
What we can solve is by finding teams, finding developers who are ideologically aligned with what we're about.
ideologically aligned with with what we're about for example so they see the advantage they see
the potential they know that it's not going to be like a short term quick turnaround or anything
like that it's going to be something that only on ckb can they actually execute what they want to
execute and finding those types of projects is is much harder there are some ways you can you can do
that but it requires an evangelist who understands those things and understands kind of where they
need to be approaching so it's hard either way personally i just lead towards commission because
i feel like you know the incentive i think the incentives align a little bit better from that perspective.
And maybe it potentially opens up the floor for multiple people to do that.
But also, when there's no salary, then maybe the accountability is not there as much.
It's a difficult one, but personally i think commission is uh
just slightly better yeah there's uh yeah i mean like i'm kind of on the fence with both of those
types of things um and one of them is that uh in the past um i think there was a short-lived
program at the foundation where they did offer a commission of a few thousand dollars if you were able to
bring in a project. I was actually against that personally. And that's because I found it to be
a kind of, it's almost like a conflict of interest in certain ways. Like I didn't want,
when I was out there speaking to teams and or developers and stuff. I didn't want it to be something like
my motivation was perceived to be only because I was getting a commission. I thought it was a
much stronger message that I was able to, that I was going out there. And while I was on salary,
for sure, I was going out there and trying to talk to these teams and everything, wanting them to build because I actually believed in the project,
not because I was paid on commission.
I mean, maybe it's a subtle thing.
Maybe it's not really that important,
but that is definitely how I felt about it at the time.
Yeah, I think there's no right answer here.
So it's probably something that, like you said, could be maybe a combination of the two. So you just get a sizable bonus for a successful community approval.
I discussed this before, but I was, um, uh, I can't remember if I said, you know, maybe
the, the payout for a commission could be upon actual completion of the, uh, proposal itself
to, to show that the team has actually delivered, um, which is one way to kind of get around
like gaming and that kind of stuff.
But, um, um, but yeah, um, But yeah, I think a combination
approach is probably
the most sensible.
Yeah, I mean, I think for the
commission or something, that would most likely be
broken up and paid on the milestones.
And ultimately
the amount
that would be paid would probably be
tied to the grant amount
as well with certain types of minimums and maximums attached to it.
So I want to move forward to the grant advocate, which is the next role, community role I want
to discuss.
So this one is a little bit different as in a grant evangelist is out there trying to make development teams
known about our DAO program and trying to pull them in. But once they come into the ecosystem
and they are ready to start working on their proposal, that's where a grant advocate comes in.
And so this is really just a person that is provided and paid by the DAO to support applicants through the entire grant
process. And so this is somebody who actually, I do this with the teams that I work with. And I
know, Neon, a lot of what you've just mentioned about the Catalyst program, you're effectively
doing that same role yourself, which is you're trying to get these
teams to understand certain nuances about the Nervos ecosystem, certain things that they need
to be educated about, maybe certain things about what's expected by the community and the grant
program. And you're helping them to navigate through this entire process and making it easy
for them rather than just kind of coming in and stumbling through the entire thing by themselves. So a lot of this is little things like with the
grant, helping it to define scope and the milestones, helping them to define a budget,
which makes sense. Sometimes it means actually helping them to assemble the team by connecting
them to Nervos, people who know the Nervos ecosystem.
Like, for example, if they're an external team and they want to integrate Nervos,
it would help for them to work with a developer for the Nervos part of it,
that specific component.
So they need to be introduced for somebody,
and that would be the role of the great advocate to help make something like that happen.
After they are ready to go on that part, the advocate also helps them draft the proposal,
including certain parts about it, like who are they even going to, once they're ready
to launch, who are they going to partner with, right?
What community teams are they going to be introduced to?
Maybe they need to be introduced to some of the influencers out there,
the YouTube people, to help with advertising and getting people
to be onboarded onto their application.
And to do that, it requires a bit of a marketing effort, right?
You need to make sure that the community is aware
that your product is out there and ready to be used
in order for it to get users in order to make it sustainable. It could also be with certain things like press
releases, which can also in themselves be used for marketing. And then finally, guiding them
through the actual grant process itself, including helping them with community questions that are
arising because they might not know all the subtle details all the time.
There might be certain things that they're just simply unaware of and which would make them in the eyes of the community not look good,
but ultimately just not being because they're just not familiar with it, not because they don't care.
And so a lot of these little things just keep we are noticing this and it really helps, I think, to have somebody in your corner if you're going to go through this process, which is, I think, quite frankly, it's pretty uncomfortable for a lot of teams to go through this, to put themselves out there and go through a public grant process like this.
In general, it seems like they really, really prefer to go through the private grant process rather than the public one,
from what I've noticed. So I think that this is one where the amount of compensation is a lot more
clear on what it could be. So, well, first, it should be said that the team itself, that the
team that's going to apply for the grant, this is something that is offered to them, the help of a grant advocate. They don't have to accept it. They can deny it,
in which case it saves the DAO funds, but it is something that is offered to them.
And then if it's something like a small grant, $5,000 or less, I would suggest 10% of the grant amount, which is provided by the DAO
on top of the grant that goes to the actual recipient.
10% goes to the grant advocate who is working through that process.
And then if it's over $5,000, then it drops a little bit to 5% of the grant amount, but
with a minimum and maximum. A minimum
of $500 is paid and a maximum of $10,000 for those really large grants. So if somebody comes through
the door with something like a million-dollar grant or something, which is pretty unlikely,
but if it did come through, they're still only paid $10,000. Now, because of these caps and
everything, it could be stated like with some of these long-term projects, maybe that's not actually enough if they're really helping.
Well, I think that part of this is you just need to make sure that the rules around this are not really too restrictive.
As in, if this is really a project that's some super large project that's building and they have a significant budget and everything,
there's probably a lot of work to be done. And for that reason, you shouldn't restrict the
grant evangelist or the grant advocate in any way from actually taking an equity position in the
project, or you should not restrict them from actually taking compensation and having a formal
role with the project. Ultimately, the funds from the DAO are still limited. And it is, I think, to the benefit
for the projects to build within the ecosystem that if they are willing to hire certain people
for whatever role, they should be able to. And that's a good way to continue that relationship
on certain things
while supporting the project and supporting the ecosystem.
All right, so that's most of what I had on that.
Did you have something you wanted to add, man?
Yeah, I was going to ask a question.
I'm not sure if you mentioned this, you cut out at one point, but what would it just be?
How many advocate roles would you see there being, for example, like there's a few scenarios that come to mind.
But what if, for example, if what if an evangelist has earmarked a project for, you know, referral to the DAO?
And what if the advocate says,
what the hell is this?
This is a bunch of rubbish.
This is a waste of my time.
I'm not going to go through the whole chaperoning them
through the process
because it's just,
I don't think it's a good project.
I don't think it's the right fit.
There's that one scenario.
And then if you have multiple advocates,
then what's the decision-making process that one scenario and then if you have like multiple if you have multiple advocates then
what's the decision making process for which advocate gets allocated to a project for example
there might be more you know inclination or incentive if it's a larger um if it's a larger
proposal amount then an advocate might say no you know that they prefer to be allocated to that
because you know potentially the compensation for them is higher or whatever so what's the
decider there is it kind of just a randomized thing or is um is it kind of like a a voting
thing or something so those are the two questions i had and i think i have some thoughts after that
but i'll leave it with my first all right right so anyway with um with the advocates
like i don't think there needs to be a a solid number on this i mean ultimately this is is one
you'll probably have certain people who specialize in a little bit more than others um but ultimately
i don't see there needing to be a firm number on it. These are not official positions. These are paid on commission.
Well, not on commission, but as part of the grant itself.
So it's not a full-time role.
You're not going to end up with necessarily these situations
where it's just unattainable or there's not really,
either there's too many applicants or something. I don't think those are realistic situations,
but ultimately it's the team, I think, that is the one that's going to decide.
I would say that probably the representatives, it could make recommendations on who they suggest would be the best advocates.
And then ultimately, the advocates pretty much just throw their hat in the ring, right? It doesn't
need to be a super formal process or something, but maybe they just say, yes, I'm interested in
that. And then their hat is basically thrown in there at that point.
And then the representatives may give either a recommendation. If there's a specific skill set or something that really matches up with the project, then I think that makes it a no-brainer.
But if it's really just between a couple of them, then I would say that it's ultimately the decision of the team.
They will see a list of various people,
which they could go ahead and look up
at their profile within the DAO portal.
I mean, I wouldn't even say that it's,
especially if it was a large project or something,
it wouldn't be too much to ask the advocate
to throw together a quick either text or video introduction
and saying why they think they're the right person.
We're talking about a video that's about a minute or two.
It doesn't need to be much.
And it's simply up to the team.
If they want one, it's available to them,
but they've got to make the decision on who that's going to be. And if partway through the process, for some reason, it doesn't work out,
this is a case where the advocate can be fired by the team as well. The team should have absolutely
the complete right to change them out if it's not working for whatever reason. So, I mean,
change them out if it's not working for whatever reason.
So, I mean, I see it as basically an opt-in position for both sides.
It's just, it is ultimately one that is paid for by the DAO
because these types of relationships are synergistic to the ecosystem.
I would think, too, that that would, you know,
it might be a little rough at the beginning
and it might be some people going after it,
but at some point people's resumes will speak for themselves on that, too.
And, you know, someone will rise to the top and say, these are the, you know, 10 proposals I've written, gotten through.
And, you know, that would kind of just build your own resume like that and build your own business.
Yeah, yeah, I think so.
I mean, like if we I mean, hopefully in the future as we um we start to get
more teams coming through this this could end up being a full-time job for uh some people
definitely if if we uh if they were able to do 10 grants a year i'd say like that's a pretty
reasonable salary at that point.
Yeah, so I had a thought about this in terms of the advocate role,
because I think there's a few different approaches or conceptions of what the advocate should be doing.
Is it kind of like they're helping a project through the process
to kind of iron out any difficulties and to make this process as smooth as possible?
Or are they like completely just taking over the process of applying, helping the team apply for a grant and ensuring that it goes through because there's some nuance between the two because of the latter
it's really you know it's the idea of oh you know a team is going to choose the advocate who's just
going to do all the work for them and say look you know we want you to author the the grant
proposal we want you to just to kind of make sure it all goes through and everything and we'll just
you know it's almost like a like being the spokes but almost the spokesperson for the project to the DAO to say,
you know, look, this is the proposal and answering the questions, that type of thing.
Whereas the other type of conception is the advocate is still somewhat a neutral party.
They're helping the project with the construction of the proposal,
but it's the project that will submit the proposal. It's the project that will have to
answer the questions. There's prison cons to both of those, but I wanted to know what are your
thoughts on that? Right. Well, I see the advocate as being, if you had to say what team is the advocate on,
he's on the recipient's team, the grant recipient. He is part of their team effectively.
So he and what he does for them is, I mean, that's a little bit up for debate. Like I think some of that, but ultimately it's really that he is, since he's part of
their team, that's something that he will need to negotiate with them.
I think that with most teams, and this is my personal experience in working with teams
is they very much appreciate that if somebody helps them with the grant writing process.
Ultimately, the grant itself, the proposal itself belongs to that team though. What they say in
there is coming out of their mouth and it is their message. They can put whatever they want
on there. They don't have to necessarily agree with what the advocate is saying.
The advocate is just there to try to help the process.
And sometimes that just means it's subtle things,
like just organizing the proposal a little bit better,
helping them to proof it,
and making sure that they put in all the proper details.
And some of this is just because I've seen that the quality of proposal
that comes through with different teams, it varies very extensively.
Some of them are very good at it.
Some of them are very, very bad at it.
And the ones that are bad in particular,
it's like you basically are rewriting
the entire thing for them. But ultimately what you're doing is putting in their, you're plugging
in their details ultimately, because they're the ones that are going to be working on it.
The advocate is not somebody who I would say is generally going to be somebody who's part of the
team as in building the project.
It's not really that type of a relationship.
But again, in saying that earlier, I said that they should be not restricted and they
should be able to take equity or some type of a formally compensated position.
It's not out of the question, but it's generally in most cases, I don't see that to be the
case.
But hopefully that kind of answer your question.
Like the advocate, he's on their team.
He's working for them on their side.
Just kind of the same way that like a lawyer, when you hire a lawyer, he's on your team.
He's working for you and he's trying to get you the best result.
I see ultimately the advocate is trying to make that happen as well.
Okay, cool.
That makes a lot more sense then, Jordan.
I can't remember if we discussed last time about what
the process is. I think
actually you did answer it, which is if the team
decides that the advocate is not fulfilling the role that they would like,
for example, they have the option to change the advocate or, you know, replace them with a different one for them or whatever.
What if, and I'm assuming there's a process on the community side,
if they think the advocate also is kind of messing things up
or they're not doing a good enough job, for example,
then I'm assuming that there's also a process for the advocate
to be changed on the community side as well.
Well, let's see.
I mean, this is a little bit trickier one.
So I think that if the team decides to fire the advocate, absolutely, this is one where
the compensation that they receive will be split in a certain way, probably depending
on the amount of time that they've been with the project and the milestones
that may have been completed. I mean, I think this is one area which probably needs a little
bit more thought is what if they have done, the team has progressed through certain milestones,
but the advocate has not fulfilled their duties. And this is just discovered later. Maybe the advocate didn't do anything. They did nothing,
and the team has already made it through two of their five milestones or something. How is that
handled? Well, that's probably going to go through a representative vote or something, in which case
the advocate won't get anything since they haven't done anything. But there's a lot of more nuanced ones where it will become a little bit more tricky.
Now, if they're fired by the team, I think that's pretty clear.
The team has fired them.
For them to be fired by the community, though, I don't know that that is necessarily...
is necessarily...
And, you know, that's a tricky one
because it's like, ultimately,
what would be the case
in which they are actually fired?
Because they're not working
for the community in this respect.
The advocate is working for the team.
And so if, I mean,
if the community had an outcry to the team and said, Hey,
you've got to fire this guy. I could absolutely see that,
but I'm not sure that I necessarily see a good argument that if the team is
happy with the work that the advocate's doing,
why would the community be outraged and why would it be their decision
that he would be fired from the team yeah i think um it's uh it maybe like the the team has been like you know recommended preferred by an evangelist
and you know over time maybe as the process is happening the team starts to lose interest they've
got other you know things going on um other ecosystems they're working in on
whatever and so like they're not you know they're not fully invested it's not their sole focus if
that makes sense and the advert is kind of not pushing things along or not trying to keep things
um up to pace or or trying to push things. And maybe there's a complaint from like,
in the end of the saying, look, you know,
why is this not happening?
Or the community people, people in the community says,
what's going on?
Why has this not happened?
That type of thing.
I guess it's a question of maybe like,
maybe it's just that kind of niche scenario of like,
a team is kind of just becoming more disinterested as the process is going
on and the advocate isn't um isn't doing everything to to bring things back on track
and so there's there's um you know frustration for example in the community okay look this was a good
project or whatever you know i'm just thinking about that you know maybe this will never ever happen or whatever but i
think that if there's some type of recourse for um if there's like uh some type of maybe it's even
like a misdemeanor or something or another in the communities like case some type of shady stuff
has been going on or whatever then the team doesn't care about another in the community's lurk case some type of shady stuff has been going
on or whatever then the team doesn't care about it but the community thinks it's an ethical problem
or whatever there should be like some options i think for recourse from within the community or
representatives or whatever i know this stuff gets a little bit sometimes it gets a bit political
and i can see it like if that type of situation was to transpire it would just be like it'd be a mess but like I think because ultimately a person
when they become an advocate in the first place or they're selected by the
community and to become that there has to be a process of like in an emergency
for example kind of cutting things off for one reason or another?
Right. Well, I mean, I think that the incentives in themselves are actually aligned in a way that
this is what you're described. What you described is actually, I would say, a very plausible
situation. This is one where a team simply loses motivation
partway through the project. I mean, I've seen that happen a dozen times, right? Within the
industry, it's happened thousands of times. That is a common scenario. So if that happens,
then the team itself is not going to get paid the rest of their milestones. So that's their
motivational issue. And that is their penalty is they just simply don't get paid for what they haven't done.
Now, on the advocate side, that happens with them too, right?
If the team is not completing their milestones, then they're not receiving their credits as well because they would be paid out their fees on milestones as well.
So the advocate, again, is effectively working for the team.
And it should be in the advocate's interest to help push the project a little bit in certain
ways, right?
But ultimately, it's the team that's in charge there. If the team is not going to do it,
then the advocate,
you know,
I can't,
you have to put yourself in their shoes a little bit.
They're going to throw their hands up at some point,
right? And say,
okay,
this team is,
is bogus.
I'm maybe they end up quitting at that point and saying like,
you know,
I don't believe that this team is,
is going to finish this project.
So I'm stepping down uh formally
from my role of advocate i mean like i could see something like that happening um but again like i
don't see that this is being the community necessarily needs to step in and say you know
hey you got to get it up because like it's like what is what is ultimately what is ultimately at risk there?
If payments are stopped because the team is not making progress, then there's nothing to be really outraged about in terms of like, we require action and we require this person
to be written up in some formal way.
I don't think any of that needs to happen.
The team is going to lose their reputation if they don't follow through with this project.
I mean, if they have a good reason for it,
they need to make a statement
because that happens too.
The industry changes a lot.
Maybe their project's no longer viable,
but that's on them.
That's on them to make that statement.
And the advocate should help them.
They should help them,
encourage them to make that statement.
But ultimately,
if they don't follow through with the project, that's going to hurt them and the advocate, right? The advocate
who was assigned to that project, that's his reputation as well because he's associated with
it. And to some extent, that's going to be on the grant evangelist as well, the business
development person who brought that in. Everybody's going to take a little bit of a hit for that one.
And so anyway, that's kind of how the system is supposed to work
because ultimately that is what we are relying to,
to some extent, is reputation.
And your reputation is what allows you to work through different ecosystems,
work on grant projects, and ultimately get more support
for whatever you're trying
to build.
So anyway, I don't necessarily, I don't know if you see this the same way, but I don't
necessarily see it as becoming much of a problem.
Yeah, I think it's easy to get lost in niche scenarios.
And I think if something like that transpires, something similar to transpires,
I think with most things,
things can be put to a vote or whatever, for example,
but it's one of those situations
where I don't see it as a particular problem
if the community has a voice about something and then wants to,
and oftentimes it might not just be like a single incident, it might be like a pattern of things, and then with any kind of DAO role, you can just elect someone else.
There's ways to change course, if that makes sense.
And like you said, the incentives are generally speaking aligned to encourage people to have a good outcome and to successfully finish things off.
outcome and to successfully finish things off. There's no real explanation for like, unless
there's some kind of maybe personal circumstances or whatever. But I think generally these types
of issues, you kind of deal with them as they come along, understanding that like whatever
process that we've set up or we've conceived is not going to be able to kind of,
it won't be prepared for every single permutation out there.
I don't think that's even feasible or possible.
But yeah, I think the general gist of it makes sense.
Okay.
And so anyway, I just noticed the time. We are already at the hour.
So I think we should probably just try to do one more topic,
but we won't be able to get all three today.
So the next one was policies and adjusting grant amounts
after approval.
So the motivation behind this one
was that the grants sometimes don't go as planned. Reapplying can be
very burdensome if they have to do a full reapplication process. So we need some kind
of a policy framework to enable adjustments with minimal friction while we also try to prevent
abuse of the system. And I think that ultimately it's like, why is this something that's going to happen?
It's, well, we've already observed it many times. UTXO development has high complexity and high
overhead just in a general sense. Our ecosystem in particular, because it's different than other
UTXOs, anybody who comes in for the first time has to learn our platform.
It's adding a little bit more overhead there.
Our ecosystem still is missing
certain pieces of infrastructure
and the tooling is getting much better,
but there's absolutely certain edge cases
that are not yet fully covered.
And that's just because no developer
has actually needed to do certain actions
so that the tool doesn't do that right and some and sometimes um sometimes the team is able to
accommodate those types of things sometimes they're not and you have to find a workaround
you can add a little bit more time and then of course documentation an ongoing thing in every
ecosystem it seemed in every ecosystem i've been into, the documentation is incomplete.
And that's definitely true in ours.
It's, again, gotten much better, but it is not by any means 100% completion.
I don't think it ever will be.
The team can underestimate the amount of work that's going to go.
So all of these things add up, and grants just don't go as planned sometimes. The team can underestimate the amount of work that's going to go.
And even very experienced teams can sometimes underestimate the time and cost that goes into development.
So how do we handle this?
I think that it's pretty easy to adjust it downward.
Now, I don't think that any team is going to probably do that.
If they've overbidden and successfully approved the grant,
they're probably not going to go down very much, at least voluntarily. But there are absolutely
reasons that that might need to happen. And I think that that could happen if it's deemed that
part of the grant is no longer relevant. And this could be due to industry changes, which were unexpected.
Maybe certain milestones need to be taken out because those parts of the projects are
no longer relevant.
And so if that's actually the case, I think that whenever you go down, you're down in
the grant amount, you're at a much higher risk of causing some disagreement with the team.
And so in that case, it's ultimately, I think, that the DAO and the team itself,
if they can just reach some kind of agreement in a diplomatic way,
that's the absolute best type of thing.
It'll still go through a grant vote process
in which representatives in the community can all just vote to either go down a certain
amount or so. But ultimately, what is the scenario if you can't find any agreement?
The forced action is you can cancel the grant and all remaining milestones.
So it's the Dow itself still remains in control of the situation if for some reason the situation gets bad and just goes off the rails.
But you don't want it to.
The goal is always to try to get it uh to push it forward in certain ways
but um but yeah so anyway that adjustment might actually happen from time to time but the the one
that's a little bit more of a larger issue is probably adjustment adjusting upwards and that's
that fits more in line with what i discussed about just expectations of what needs to be done. It was
not anticipated, and it ends up being much more work. I would say that for the guidelines that
I've kind of brainstormed here is that for grants up to $10,000, an adjustment of $2,500 can occur.
It always requires a vote. I want to make that clear. Always requires a vote, but this is a psychological limit that we have, a general community consensus limit
that there's minimal scrutiny on this. If you have a small grant, another 2,500 bucks, which is a 25%
is where we've already planned for that because we understand that this is kind of a scenario
that happens pretty regularly.
So as long as it's justified,
it won't be scrutinized too much.
We see this as general overhead costs
that something didn't go right.
If it requires more than $2,500,
though, we, as a community,
will need to scrutinize this more and potentially have
them reapply if it's really that much more. Now for grants that are over $10,000, I think that
the limits change a little bit. I would say that 20% of whatever the grant amount is,
is basically as long as the team is in good standing and milestones are on track and everything.
If that is, I think, a pretty decent amount that if you have a grant that needs an extra 20 amount, that's your threshold for pushing it through without too much scrutiny.
Although it, of course course still requires a vote.
If it's more than that, of course, then again, it's going to require a lot more scrutiny
and possibly a full application.
But regardless of what you're doing, it's always going to require a justification,
probably a little bit of a discussion, and ultimately a vote. It's never
automatic. Yeah, I was going to say that I had a conception fairly similar to that, which,
as you said, is beyond a certain, underneath a certain threshold, you can almost have like a small vote or a, you know,
maybe it's just representatives or maybe it's some type of governance council or that type of thing.
So it's not a big, not a big deal from that perspective, but if it passes a certain threshold,
big not a big deal from that perspective but if it passes a certain threshold either it should be a
new proposal altogether but basically it's a complete reassessment of the grant itself
and then you can a fresh vote to request let's say for example what you said which is all more
than 25 20 for example if it's over ten10,000. That to me seems fairly reasonable.
You get scope creep for example pretty much every project.
The required R&D or whatever turns out to be a lot more than what was initially planned
or scoped out.
So I think that's a fairly reasonable expectation.
Right.
So just to be clear, are you suggesting that over 20
percent on the large projects we just make it a a rule that they must reapply
to go through the grant process again um it would require a more formal type of vote um
It would require a more formal type of vote.
Is it like, it depends because you could get up to the very final milestone.
I don't know.
I think, yeah, I think there would definitely have to be some type of reappraisal of that milestone, for example,
or repackaging it into something more substantial because for example if it's 25 percent
uh over 25 percent and you're talking about like a 100k um grant for example already then that is
it's a significant amount more um and so in that uh in that context i think think it would be a good practice for a complete repackaging of that
milestone, for example, or subsequent milestones as a separate grant altogether, because that is a
significant amount more. I think it does require community approval on a more formal basis to kind of maybe some scrutiny or questioning about like, you know, why is it so far out, for example,
or can anything be done to maybe change some of the targets or goals to bring things down to what the original proposal amount was.
But then it's clear that when things go out of hand, not out of hand, but out of scope
by that amount, then I think there needs to be some more in-depth discussions.
And I think that is probably best done as a separate proposal.
Right, right.
That does make sense.
I mean, ultimately, both procedures,
whether or not it's officially a new proposal
or it's just a vote, I mean, both of those
are actually voting procedures through the same system.
Just one requires a little bit extra documentation.
That would be the grant proposal process.
So, I mean, other than a little bit of paperwork, there's not a tremendous difference in that.
So, I mean, I think ultimately now I'm starting, after hearing you talk about it, I'm leaning towards saying that over 20% requires a full grant proposal or a new re-application.
Because ultimately, it's just not that different.
It's just seen as, I guess, like this is an additional grant being given because you're
not able to stay within budget.
Kevin, are you raising your hand over there?
Yeah. able to stay within budget um kevin are you raising your hand over there yeah i mean maybe
we just document or there's a sliding percentage scale based on the size of the grant you know
up to x amount is you know 25 like you said up to x amount is 20 15 you know um before before
requiring a full resubmit
yeah yeah i mean that's that's generally how i i um i put it although i didn't define minimums or maximums on uh very large uh grant amounts like let's let's go to the extreme if you have a
million dollar grant an extra two $200,000 is 20%.
That's a pretty big change.
Yeah, my thought was the bigger the grant, the smaller the percentage you can ask for.
So maybe when you're getting up there, you're only asking for 10% on $100,000 or 5% on a million if we get there.
The $10,000 could go to the $25,000. hundred thousand or five percent on a million if we get there you know the ten thousand could
go to the 25 as long as it's clearly outlined you know from the beginning
right right yeah i mean i mean like i have no problem doing a different scaled amount it's
just for the sake of keeping it simplistic it's um once you start like I don't want to have to keep doing more and more different
categories, which is why I think it's easier to just sometimes say, here's a maximum amount,
though, whatever it is, 20% or this maximum amount. Then that covers the large grants as well.
And like I discussed earlier, it's like ultimately if they have to reapply for another
grant, it's not like that's the end of the world. It's just a little bit of extra paperwork.
If you're talking about tens or thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars,
I don't think that they should be that opposed to writing up another couple pages of material for a grant proposal.
Yeah, I was just going to add, I think the difference between us, Jordan, is more of a
technicality, like you say, whether it's like a vote occurs on that or whether it's kind of more
of a new proposal in terms of there has to be more of a maybe like a formal explanation
and reappraisal of what's happened what they learned what they what they need to do differently
because in theory um it might not be the it might not be the only time they have to ask for the
funds if that makes sense it could be asked for you know some amount of funds and then it happens again.
They go, okay, now after a couple of months,
they go, oh, you know, it's actually this part as well
is taking a lot longer.
And so I think if there is just a formalized process
beyond a certain threshold, I think it just gives,
I think it makes teams hopefully just think carefully.
I mean, a lot of this is sometimes out of the control of the team, for example,
but I think just having a more formalized discussion about it just gives that reassurance
and it doesn't preclude further requests down the line,
and it doesn't preclude further requests down the line,
but it should just be understood that, like, you know,
if it is beyond a certain threshold, it is a significant matter.
Yeah, I think that's good.
I'm just thinking again, like, with all of these things,
I think is there a way to game it?
You know, like, you know, could you just ask for a couple of 10%,
for example, over time? aim it, you know, like, you know, could you just ask for a couple of 10%,
for example, over time?
Um, and, but, but, but it is still voted on, um, in a more, in a, in a smaller
sense.
So I think, um, yeah, I like the idea of a past certain point, then we just go
back to a new proposal or just something more formal for reassurance more than anything.
Right. Okay.
I was going to say, if you want to carry on with the last one,
I've got some time.
So it's up to you guys whether you want to carry on with the last one, I've got some time. So it's up to you guys whether you want to continue.
Okay.
Well, I mean, if we can try, let's try to keep this one really short.
I think we might be able to get through this one in 15 to 20 minutes.
So the last one is early participation incentives.
And so the last time we talked about this one, we expressed a couple of viewpoints that definitely we think it's worth it.
But ultimately, I didn't really have too much thought on exactly what we would be incentivizing too much and how it would be incentivized or even amount.
So before I get too deep in this, I should probably mention that I'm not the person who's ultimately the decider here because it's not coming out of my pocket.
But I am going to put together a proposal on how we can fund these things.
And, you know, this might be something that we could actually put through the DAO, but regardless of what program it comes through, it has to be approved by somebody, whether that's the grant committee
or the DAO itself. Now, so let's see. Where do we need to, let's see, where should I start on this?
So let's start with the delegated representatives, because I also, I ran a poll in Nervous Nation,
and let me pull that up, because I'm curious about where that ended up.
It was a little bit higher than I expected, I remember. Yes. So we had 33% of the people that
voted said that they wanted to become a representative, apply to be a representative
to help out the community. 16% they would apply, but only if there was compensation.
help out the community. 16%, they would apply, but only if there was compensation.
And that right there is higher than I thought. That's 49%. That's half the people. 33% said
they wouldn't because they thought others were more qualified. 16% said they didn't have the
time or interest and 5% undecided. So that's really actually split down the middle between
the yes and the no, and then 5% undecided.
Surprisingly high.
So we might actually get a fair amount of representatives to participate in this program.
So what I was thinking is maybe something like the first, maybe the first 50 to 100, but definitely at least 50 verified delegates would receive something like 50 bucks.
And this is saying that you went out there, you took the time to create a good profile
on why you should be a delegate, why people should delegate to you.
And you also completed the KYC process so that you are effectively, maybe not doxed,
because you can still have an identity out there that is not necessarily 100% public.
But at the same time, you are effectively doing KYC verification with a company that
if you were to do something illegal,
you can be tracked down at that point. So we've done that. That's the same process that we've actually gone through with several grant recipients within the Godwoken ecosystem.
And this happens in a lot of different ecosystems too, is where the team is not fully publicly
doxed, but they are KYC. So if they did something truly shady, they wouldn't be caught.
And so anyway, that's an easy way to get 50 bucks. You're basically filling out a form and
putting hopefully a little bit of thought into why people should be a delegate and then
doing the KYC process, which for most people, that's five to 10 minutes, right?
And then beyond that, like if you are, I would say if, because we want to incentivize people to actually create very quality profiles and be convincing, we don't want numbers. We actually want quality.
quality, I would say that we should probably also give the top 25 by voting power an extra
50 bucks there, so doubling it up, something like that.
And then delegates are absolutely welcome to delegate their own stake to themselves
to facilitate that process.
We can't stop you from doing that because ultimately it is a the delegate system
is based on votes and there's no way to prevent that so we would just say that it's completely
legal to do that um neon is your is your hand up i can never tell what space is here because it's
like it might have just stayed up from before uh it's not up at the moment it's not on my um on my screen but um it's probably up just
yeah okay so it's it's twitter space is glitching out again what now it's just
just flashed on my screen like it came up again okay yeah it's trolling you that's what it's
yeah i'll just continue okay so so for those who want to delegate,
so we were split on the community.
50% of the people wanted to be delegates.
I definitely think that at least I'd like to make it
so that if you take the time out there,
you get 100 bucks or something.
That's going to be probably what I'm proposing.
If you don't want to do that,
which is the other half of the community,
and you just want to delegate to somebody, then I'm going to make a suggestion that we do a target
of a 1% CKB bonus for those that is paid over monthly over the course of a year for taking
time to delegate to others.
So in the very beginning, it might be a little bit more difficult to do
with the wallet binding process and everything.
But ultimately, we want to reward people for taking that time,
especially in the beginning when it's a little bit more difficult.
And also, this is taking the time to read some of these delegate profiles
and figure out who they actually want to
delegate to. And you should be able to delegate to multiple people, but ultimately you want to
make the best decision and align yourself with the values. Find the delegate that aligns with
your values and what your concerns are about their community. Just so that the bonuses don't get
out of control and cost the Dow too much money or something.
It was probably going to need to be a fixed prize pool to some extent.
So meaning that the more people that it's kind of like, well, just imagining it like a pie, right?
It's like you're going to have to slice up the pie based on everybody who delegated.
you're going to have to slice up the pie based on everybody who delegated.
But I would,
I would say that the target that I would hope for is a 1% bonus on what is,
is actually paid out to people who took the time to delegate.
So this is of course,
something that it,
that works in addition to like,
if you have your CKB funds in the,
the Dow itself you're earning your 2% there.
So it's giving you an extra 50% on the fees that you're accruing by putting it into the
Dow.
Then let's see, with direct voter, there's another situation here.
Because we want a liquid democracy system where you're not forced to
delegate and you can just vote directly. So we want to support them too. So if you don't delegate
and you instead choose to vote directly on at least, I would say, half of the proposals in the
first year, then you'll also get that same targeted 1% bonus, which would likely be paid annually at the very end.
Because since it's not something that's necessarily regular, the amount of proposals that go through the system might be irregular.
We have to pay that one out at the end to be able to calculate if you've actually fulfilled that and done at least half of them.
So that's what I would suggest is 1% targeted on that.
General participation.
Now, so if we want people to go out there,
create real profiles, join into discussions,
this is just for general participation
within the ecosystem.
I don't think that this requires any KYC
or anything like that.
But I would suggest that maybe we put together,
and this would probably go through
a different program or something,
not necessarily through the DAO itself.
Maybe this would actually go through,
well, I'm not sure where's most appropriate.
I wonder about something like CK Boost
or something like that, the upcoming bounty program.
But ultimately, a few bucks here, five to ten bucks for taking part in discussions.
And this would probably be handled by a community team, the community team, to decide who's actually done a really, you know, they've made a good effort, right? They've made a good effort to actually go out there and help jumpstart the community DAO effort
and get more participation within it.
And then let's see, to test the full grant process.
Of course, that means that we need to actually get grants through the system.
So to encourage some of that, I think that we put together,
I would recommend we put together a pool.
It doesn't have to be a very large pool or anything, but something like $10,000 pool. And what this pool
is used for is every time a grant comes through the system, it gets a 10% bonus during the initial
period, right? So if you apply for $1,000 through the grant, you will actually get a 10%, an extra $100 on top of that
just because you're going through during this initial period while we're trying to test things.
And so that'd probably be like a minimum of 100 and a maximum of 1,000, I would say,
that come out of the pool towards whatever grants are actually going through the system.
Just a little bit of an extra incentive bonus
to go through that.
And then let's see.
Public advocacy, like if we have people promoting DAO
initiatives publicly, I think that this is another one
where we could definitely, maybe we
could do something through CKBoost again just
to encourage people.
This, of course, covers things like Twitter and other places where we may be making pushes to actually get word about the DAO out there to others and try to make it a little bit more successful in the early days.
And so with all of these, we want to make sure that we keep gamification measures in place.
And so I keep all of those in mind when I'm thinking about these types of things.
It's like, can somebody use a Sybil attack, create multiple accounts or something like that?
In most cases, it's no, because we use stake-based voting or we use KYC or something.
use KYC or something in the ones that have a little bit higher things like trying to be like
when you apply to be a delegated representative, for example, that's a KYC process, should not be
ultimately gameable. And then for certain staff, like for example, foundation staff, and I'd say
would probably be excluded from most of these, especially the things like
public advocacy or participation in the grant process of scrutinizing grants that come through
the system properly, making recommendations and that kind of stuff. That's just part of our job.
That's what we're supposed to be doing anyway. So I think that it's more important that those extra funds go to the community.
So let's suggest that we become ineligible for that.
So anyway, that's most of what I have through the notes.
Either Kevin or Neon, do you have any thoughts on it?
Yeah, so thanks for the breakdown, Jordan.
Just to tell people about what CK boost is, CK boost is
this community engagement platform which through which you can complete quests by completing quests
you can get CKB or any token created on CKB or points for example and then and that's one for various different
campaigns so I've already got this idea of early DAO participation you can have your on-chain or
DAO related or you know social media activities recorded through CK boost by which you can earn points.
And then you can, you know, it can be like a leaderboard or, or different ways that people
can earn based on that. One thing I wanted to actually say is that there will be like some,
some level of KYC within CK Boost itself.
So I'm thinking about this,
and maybe there can be like a cross-platform KYC standard
within the community so that your KYC on one,
it means your KYC on the other.
And in addition to that, there could be, for example,
different levels of KYC.
For example, what we're kind of planning on initially within CKBoost is that if you want to, you can win points, you can win rewards.
If you want to actually cash out your CKB, you have to have a basic level of identity verification.
TKB, you have to have a basic level of identity verification.
And that just is basically for me to know you are actually a person and not like someone
who's made multiple accounts.
And that through Telegram, for example, if you're in the community, you have a profile,
you've been around for a little while, that's easy for me to verify that you are that person,
for instance.
And then there's other levels of verification, for example,
like what you were saying, Jordan, with the delegate, for example,
that may require a higher level of KYC.
So it could be like a KYC level one, which is like a basic telegram verification level.
And that's just the light is sort of claim some of the rewards.
And then higher levels for sort of the more involved participation, for example.
But I think the general idea of rewards for early participation makes sense.
One thing I think that definitely should be considered is,
for example, the platform that's used will be like a web browser based platform
which lends itself to like logging in with um cct which is kind of the sort of the wallet connector
that we use so so with adjoin or whatever um however many people at the moment still keep
their funds within neural wallet for example uh that example. That said, you know, it's possible, I think, through NerveDAO or other,
I think there was maybe other potential web browser-based wallets or, you know,
mobile wallets, for example.
You can import your seed base, for example.
But there should be some type of integration, in my view anyway,
with those most common wallets so that it's it's clear that
you can you have the option to participate in governance you have the option to uh delegate
your stake like that because um we still in my view still have a lot of people who kind of
are are on the periphery in terms of you you know, they'll check their wallet, you know, once every couple of months or something.
They're not really massively involved in the community.
And that might be a sizable number of people which we can onboard into governance one way or the other
by just getting better wallet integration or support or mention an option to delegate for example so those are just a few of
the thoughts that i had but but yeah ck boost i think um will uh will play uh uh has the potential
to play a good role in in a lot of those incentives um when it comes to the dow so yeah
all right perfect that sounds like it's a good fit then. I mean,
definitely just to tail onto what you just said there at the very end about wallet support,
that is a major thing that I think we really need to address. So that's one of the main
areas of focus that I've actually stayed at and out of there that I want us to,
the development team to start working on soon. The tough part of that is that we do have multiple wallets out there and
we have to get support from the wallet to support the protocol that I want to put together on this
to make it a really easy process. So it's not guaranteed because the team actually has to do it, right? All of these individual dev teams.
But I think that with the main wallets that are in support, we should be able to get them to agree to that, in which case we should have fairly good support with, I would say, what 80% of users are using.
And the way that just to state, like, how is this going to make it easier? Like,
what I envision here is ultimately when you log into the DAO portal, you say, I want to link up my wallet. It says, here's your API. Can you copy this? And then you go into your wallet and paste
it in there. And it basically takes care of the rest for you. The existing process that we had to go through with the Community Fund DAO 1.0 is way, way too complicated.
I know that I've had a number of people express directly that they refused to do it just because it was too big of a pain in the ass.
And you know what?
I went through the process too, and I needed the guides.
Jackie put together some great guides out there, but I was like I don't think I would have been able
to do it without those guides.
It was just too damn confusing.
And it really shouldn't
have been that way.
And we can do better.
So anyway, that's what
I'm proposing anyways, that
we simplified this process to just a copy
and pasting of a single number. And I think
it's completely reasonable that our main wallets should all support this.
So anyway, I think we're pretty much at the end here.
We're a little bit, well, quite a bit over time.
Three, 35 minutes over the, that's okay if we go a little bit over.
But I think that's pretty much all I have.
Do you have anything else that either one of you wants to add?
I'm pretty good, I think.
I think we've got through quite a lot today, actually,
so it's been a good discussion.
All right, fantastic.
Well, everybody out there who is still listening with us,
thank you for joining us for this.
It's been a good discussion um and anybody who's listening to a recording if you are interested in in adding your comments to it absolutely you can post them in the forum on the
the nervos top forum look that up and find the post on dow community fund dow version 2.0 you're
welcome to add your comments there.
You're also welcome to reach out to any one of us directly and give us your messages through DM.
I can't promise that I will agree with you or any of us will agree with you, but we promise to at least hear you out.
And that's what this is about.
That's what this process is about.
If you have something meaningful to say, we are going to listen.
We're not just going to do this in silence.
So anyway, that's it for me.
I think, yeah, I think we're done.
This is a good discussion, guys.
All right, guys.
Yeah, have a good morning, afternoon, evening, wherever you are.
And until next time, this is us signing out.
All right, take care all
