Yes. Particularly getting some treasury funds into the Rari pool would be a very good use-case that would bootstrap liquidity for the pool and even earn yield from borrowers, so it’s an obvious winner imo.
I don’t mind either option on point 1, I agree that quarterly is the rational way forward but I also recognize the anxiety waiting times can create in a community, we still want the community to remain as active as possible and this is a fast moving space.
EDIT: thinking more about this I think frequency of rounds should be higher during bullruns (monthly/bimonthly) and then lower frequency to quarterly when people calm down a bit during bear runs. We see how fast the space moves and many communities do amazing things, I see a lot of potential in this community with really cool members and would like to see it unleash the potential at max capacity hehe
As to increasing the 5%, more money does not equal more success, I see no rush in increasing this until we see great proposals having insufficient funds. Keep in mind, governance can always increase the % later, and as enthusiastic community is I feel it would be prudent to take things step by step to show respect to node operators (since they pay)
Just to understand this process a bit better, will the discussions/proposals be on the forum? Where and how are funding rounds structured? My assumption was discussions in forum that lead to RFC → RIP → SnapShot/ScatterShot but now I’m slightly confused how that will work with “rounds”
If discussions start in forum that eventually lead to RIP I find it hard to believe there will be any spam to be honest, it’s quite a bit of work to present a well structured RIP (and thanks Max for setting a good standard, the effort is recognized).
In regards to how many proposals I’m having difficultty understanding why there should be a limit, hmm… Was thinking any RIP will go to vote and either get rejected or funded according to the quadratic model as described, either way a proposal cannot get more than 200% funded. And I’m assuming an underfunded proposal could have another round of voting through a second RIP, especially if idea is good but timing wasnt good first time.
Sorry if this discussion is a bit premature, I’m trying to keep up with the pace things are moving now lol, great to see the activity picking up in the community!!
Yes agree and this is a good example of a scenario where I think community could get frustrated with waiting 2-3 months to get the funding out to the Rari pool, it’s a quite straightforward proposal that I imagine won’t have/need too much discussion around. If the community agrees within 1 week and then have to wait 2.5 months I could see a lot of nonsense fud arise. Just my 2 sats
Anything that can be done with crypto-assets can be done by RenVM with these funds. IMO, I see deploying capital to liquidity pools (and earning the interest) — as well as setting up liquidity mining programs — as a major use case for these funds.
The funds will be within RenVM itself. The way the new fee system will work is that the fees will no longer be placed into an Ethereum smart contract. Instead, they’ll be minted nowhere and placed into a RenVM smart contract (which, tbh, is also awesome that we can do this now with v0.4). So if someone mints 1 BTC on Ethereum, 0.0025 BTC will be placed into a special smart contract within RenVM and minted nowhere.
When governance decides what (and where) it wants to deploy these fees, RenVM can mint the fees wherever it is being instructed to do so by governance. In the same way as normal minting works. This means it is also capable of directly calling smart contracts on other chains!
Interestingly enough, what we will end up with is a decentralised community fund (as in hedge/quant/VC fund, not just lump of money fund) that can do anything a centrally controlled fund can do. It’s more powerful than a “traditional DAO” because it has a private key in its control and can access lots of different chains.
Hm, this is an interesting point. For quadratic voting to work, we need time for votes to come in (and a reasonable amount of funds accrued for voting to be controlling a meaningful amount). But, in the light of something like Rari, quarterly is definitely too slow. This RIP is as-is, but a future RIP could propose an additional “fast lane”.
I’m thinking: 50% of the community fund is voted on quarterly (gives third-parties time to propose projects and garner support), and the other 50% is voted on weekly. This could give us a nice balance of both worlds, but it would also require its own RIP so I’d encourage people to defer discussing this until another proposal (just to keep this one on track).
Awesome upgrade! Good Job
Since it will be a smart contract on RenVM itself. I want to propose something but don’t know if it could be applied technically or not.
Since we don’t know What is the best amount to be collected and When it will be collected monthly or quarterly, also we should return the unused funds to the DN operators in case… all of those will need a lot of proposals in the long term.
Can we do a shortcut and make it only one proposal which is the original proposal that includes all details about the required amount for What exactly and for How long and When should be funded?
1- Proposal A needs 0.25 BTC immediately to run a liquidity mining program.
2- Proposal A approved.
3- Once it is approved, all the coming network fees in BTC will go to the community fund address or spent automatically by the smart contract once the required amount has filled.
4- Once the required amount has filled the coming network fees back to normal to the darknode operators.
I just would like to say it will be better if the proposals become based on the market situation and the proposal itself regardless of the required amount and time frame since it is already approved by the community, not based on How much we have this month and community funds rule in general which is changeable.
Some protocol treasuries already use Yearn. renBTC in a Badger yvault for example could work for starters. Would be good exposure and has sufficient liquidity for lending/borrowing via iron bank. Could setup a custom vault solution and there are a lot of new reporting tools/apis. Coordinape could also help with the distribution to contributors. (PS. Happy to help get the team in touch to discuss with the core devs.)
I understand your point but over the long term I think the Fund would be much stronger if we knew “this is how much we have, what proposal/ideas can we do and what it too expensive that we should ignore for now”. If each time everyone has to vote on a grant, it will increase the likelihood that we don’t invest in the Ren ecosystem as much and subsequently over the long term earn less rewards for darknodes.
Basically I think we would drastically make it less effective in doing stuff.
If your concern is that the Fund would grow too much, the easy solution is what we’ve mentioned already, simply make a proposal to “send $20k back to the Darknode Rewards Contract as it’s currently not being used efficiently”, and if everyone agrees it would easily get passed.
That has a higher likelihood of working imo.
While we are mostly set on a governance level, implementing this RIP can only follow the launch of RenVM v0.4, which likely will be sometime in May (roadmap).
This gives us some time to fine-tune this RIP, as well as create a new proposal for a ‘fast-lane’ grant system, as the discussion in this thread has shown there being a need for that.
So I suggest we spend this week on that. I’ll put up a Snapshot vote on a few parameters for this RIP soon. And if anyone wants to create a general thread on the fast-lane idea, or directly post a RFC on it, I strongly encouraged that (also feel free to DM me to brainstorm or discuss whatever).
While I can appreciate the good intentions of this RIP, I’d much prefer a system where the funding should be is based on voluntary contributions rather than forcing DN owners to pay like some kind of a tax on top of the tax I would have to pay for running a DN.
it’s not that I don’t want to fund projects, in a digital age it is sometimes difficult to hold people to account and can be risky, not all DN owners may want to take that risk, and the other thing is I may just want to fund one specific projects, rather than every single project that requests funding. This is why I feel voluntary contributions with a place that projects can make proposals would be a smarter approach.
Hey everyone, I’ve put up a poll on Snapshot asking what percentage of the rewards earned by RenVM should go into the proposed Community Fund:
Everyone please vote, and provide any comments in this thread if you like! Note that this isn’t the official vote for accepting/rejecting this RIP, it’s for helping us finalize the proposal before it is put up to vote.
Roger that. On to voting.
Voted for 5%
Although I could very much be in favor of upping it to 10% in the future once I feel confident we have a clear process/vision in place for managing these funds.
What do you mean by everyone has to vote?
I think everyone has to vote on any grant proposal in the future, so What is the difference? tell me if I’m wrong.
The current result shows How the community is confusing about the vote because we don’t know What is the future grant proposals. either 5% or 10% will be applied, it will not be the accurate community’s choice and most likely will be changed later especially when the network volume increase because the % will become a large amount.
When the community fund becomes a case by case based on the original grant proposal there is no need for the fast-lane fund as well.
Make it simple. Grant proposal can be funded at any time for any amount as long as the proposal has approved by the community. this will avoid the current active vote, fast-lane, return unused funds, and all future related proposals.
Similar to Dash ecosystem fund.
Seeing that the current vote is near 50/50 where 50% want 10%, and 50% want pretty much 5% or less, I propose that if the final results look like this that we go with 7.5%. This would be reasonable considering the ratio of results.
Positives with having a treasury:
- The more the Ren ecosystem grows the more the community is able re-invest, furthering growth
- Clear budget
- Allows the community to invest in bigger projects as the treasury builds up
Negatives with a purely grant-based system:
- Uncertainty in spending
- Funds are never available to be spent, have to wait for epochs to occur
- Not possible to do quadratic funding
It’s perhaps true that setting it at 7.5% would be the most fair, but changing the rules of the vote while the vote is in motion seems like a big negative, setting a bad precedent. I didn’t expect things would be so close, so would much prefer that we make a new vote if the results are inconclusive, with slightly different rules/less alternatives, to make it clear for everyone voting what would happen if XYZ occurs.
Of course, I would hope after vote is finished this could be discussed!