At the moment, we have built a fairly rich infrastructure. We have teams with their own wallets, several NTF markets, developed decentralized exchange. More recently, we have allocated a budget for the operation of our DAO. Therefore, I suppose that the time has come to significantly reduce the amount of spending from the Main Givers and recommend the SG, to suspend or significantly reduce the distribution of coins in the form of contests. To begin with, I propose to implement a 3-month freeze of any spending with.
Many may say that there are more important areas and SGs, and they need to continue to be funded, unlike others. I propose to suspend funding for everyone, without exception. Perhaps after a 3-month freeze period, we will understand what is really important to us, and what really does not make sense to finance further.
Of course, a number of members and teams that have actively participated in our community will probably leave us. But by doing so, we will understand who really believes in the project and is ready to deal with it, regardless of the constant replenishment of crystals, and who is just sawing coins in a long series of not very necessary contests and partnerships. After all, if the projects and teams that we have already financed could not become self-sustaining, and continue to exist only thanks to regular tenders and tranches, then it is better to get rid of them.
In addition to this, in competitions that involve the continuation of work on the project on the part of the creator, do a lot of vesting. Divide the payout into 12 parts and give out 1 part per month only when the KPI is met.
I think contest systems as well need a bit of a rework. For example, introducing a time interval (1 or 2 weeks) after proposal acceptance so the community could understand that this contest will launch and there will be time to make suggestions. Because now you don’t even know if some proposal will get accepted or not, and maybe even there is no need to spend time on reviewing it (and commenting).
As well I think we should more think about the Contest Code, review the most common caveats, introduce vesting everywhere where it is possible, make maybe a possibility to stake that vesting without actually having control of it
Hi. The problem is not in contests themselves, but in non-fulfillment of obligations (KPIs for some partnerships, for example). Therefore, it is necessary not to declare a “hunger strike” (which is pretty dangerous like blackout of entire network economy), but to specifically and targetly suspend payments, if there are grounds for that. Like regarding the analytics from A&S, there are some grounds for some partnerships. We only need to update the statuses for projects / partnerships and then quickly vote for decision to cancel vestings for them!
I strongly against this proposal. Its implementation will ruin the existing professional teams and will lead to massive layoffs that can not be reverted when this “freeze” is lifted.
More, I plan to propose some indexation of the prizes taking into account the current low rate. We must keep people, they are our main treasure.
Оставить выплаты только тем, кто связан с разработкой, остальным прекратить. Среди сообщества много негатива в связи с тем, что значительные средства тратятся впустую.
I am against drastic changes. let’s face it. I have been here since May 2020 and during this time I have not seen a strong breakthrough in the number of active people.
On the contrary, the entire active line-up, about 70 percent, came from the beginning. We came to the ideology that was described a year ago. If we freeze this important part, then I’m afraid we will lose a lot of the original followers.
And as experience has shown, we will look for a replacement even longer. The community will thin out a lot. Perhaps the smartest and most ingenious programmers will remain, but do you think this will attract newcomers or, on the contrary, repel them? Which team is easier to join: the team of serious geniuses? or all the same in a variegated team, where everyone will find their place?
I think the answer is obvious, especially since the main problem is the qualitative and quantitative growth of the community, which in turn will lead to an increase in the price of the token.
Спасибо большое Вам за предложение Дмитрий ,но в нем есть некоторые нюансы включая существующем бюджеты ,а так же старая методика отчётов за выделенные средства .На самом деле стоит
1 Поменять методику отчёта на более развернутую и глубокую перед сообществом за трату средств включив подтверждение на выплаты за конкурсы ,награды ,действия с средствами с мультисига и гивера методом голосования с сообществом а не только И.М и основаниях оценки жюри
(Тем самым больше людей начнет разбираться в событиях экосистемы и не кто не будет кричать про заговоры )
2 Просто давайте средства частями на основе стейк системы или просто частично за партнёрства или конкурсы будет мотивация не сливаться с ЭКО системы и подымать ее уровень всем вместе
Я знаю что меня опять не услышат и мои слова пустые и не имеют значения . пути исправления находятся не в заморозке а в открытости действий и четкой структуре выплат
Personally I somehow (with different level of involvement) participate in three SGs (ForMet, DevEx, Defi) and:
All the SGs are pretty much responsible in terms of contest selection and award amounts
But :
All the SGs are extremely slow, a huge amount of time is wasted for all the discussions, reaching an agreement, lack of involvement etc. Each of them could be at least three times faster if we could rid-off all this burecreacy.
Example? Easy. I think everybody agrees that the stable coin is critically needed for our ecosystem but we already wasted more than two months trying to start a Stage 2 contest for it.
So I’m afraid that implementation of your proposal will lead to some extra burecreacy and additionally slow down the process that are unacceptibly slow even now.
As I know all the SGs periodically send their reports to the main gov and also have community chats. Also all the SGs (at least, where I’m involved to) are working on the improving their rules and transparency. So my question is: could you please bring some examples of ineffective and opaque spendings?
I don’t know much about non-technical teams. But I guess they have the same problem: if they are really doing something useful they are supposed to hire people and pay salaries to them. Stopping of payments will break these teams.
I am completely against this proposal! To break - do not build! SGs are launched, they function and develop, the community is based on this, it has just been more or less formed.
Yes. The root problem, in my opinion, we have too few professional participants (those who consider Ever activity as a primary one). The rest consider it as a kind of a leisure activity (after main work, family, hobbies etc.). And the only solution I see is to attract more teams and people concentrated on Ever. These people and teams definetely need to be fed so any kind of freezes and slowdowns will stop them from joining us.