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).
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?
Example:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And after some chatting and consultation with folks, the best course of action seems to be to average the results (ignoring what I said before), landing us on 7.13%, as the final results for what the community thinks the portion of the rewards going to the Community Fund should be.
Anyone can independently verify this value by downloading the report on Snapshot and making the calculation themselves. And I highly recommend someone to do this so we have independent verification of the results.
These results are not final, in the sense that we haven’t formally voted on this RIP yet, but the 7.13% value is what I will put in the final vote for this RIP.
For proposals in the future, we should be more clear about how votes are tallied when there are multiple choices (I certainly will). Sometimes it’s not possible to do averages, like when voting between distinct outcomes where there isn’t anything in the middle (should our mascot be a cockatoo, a bridge, or a green frog? could only be one outcome), but in this case it was possible to average the results. But either way we need to be more clearer about that, because one could also take the results as they are now and claim that 10% was the winning value. Averaging here seems to be the most fair right now though, so we’ll go for that because of that, and because we don’t want to exhaust everyone with voting on the same topic.
And as a final comment, this 7.13% value could be changed at any time through governance, and the Community Fund could reshuffle funds at any time through governance, so we need not worry to much about optimizing this value just yet.
We still need to vote on the whole RIP itself with a simple Yes/No option
Tomorrow I will put the vote, including some more details on the structure of the funding rounds, and we’ll run the whole thing for a whole week again, given that we are still waiting for the launch of RenVM v0.4.
I’ve also created a new section on the forum called ‘Grants’, which could be the place where we organize the proposed Funding Rounds (but doesn’t have to). Everything in that category is currently only draft material, which can and should be worked on by the community as a whole to create the best structure for the Funding Rounds. Also note that we have not voted on the Fast Lane system that could exist in parallel, that is still at an RFC stage (RFC-000-018: 'Fast Lane' Community Ecosystem Fund). Depending on the outcome of that future proposal, topics in the ‘Grants’ category could change.
