Hi, Matei!
I just want to announce that I have read the SFC feedback to the community proposal and my full response, as a community member, Standard holder, DAOthon project manager, and part of the team that wrote this proposal, will be coming in the next 10 working days.
Thank you!
Hello and thank you for sharing your thoughts on the proposal. We acknowledge SFCâs response as being consultative only, however, for clarification and transparency towards the entire community, we would like to address the points one by one below.
1. The documents regarding the calculus should have been made available with the proposal on Agora.
A: In our approach to keep this proposal as simple to read as possible we considered that the calculus sheets be made available on request. However, the point of view is valid and looking at it retrospectively, we could have added them as an annex or made this clear in the proposal. This being said, they are added with this feedback Easyupload.io - Upload files for free and transfer big files easily., should any community member like to consult them. Nevertheless, itâs worth mentioning that the table has been shared and discussed with the individual project teams at length in various rounds, which is also underlined by the positive feedback on Agora.
2.The reward is questionably meritocratic as all projects are mashed up (instead of a more straightforward, individual request). This led to a complex structure, a subjective 5% coefficient and calculus that is done top-down (working with 100.000 tokens down instead of starting from individual contributions and amounting to a total).
A: The ± 5% coefficient has been applied in order to achieve a more meritocratic distribution among projects. It is a commonly agreed coefficient that has also been taken through the communityâs feedback. Why 5%? Because the other models we tried would lead to either a concave (if coefficient higher than 5%) or a convex (in case of a lower coefficient) distribution of tokens, turning into a disadvantage to smaller project teams.
3. We think that individual proposals wouldâve been more suitable instead of them altogether. As such, members of the project wouldâve been able to clearly state their achievements and calculate the reward based on their efforts, thus becoming more meritocratic.
A: We understand this is a complex proposal and an individual proposal for each project would be easier to follow.
At the same time, we feel that writing individual proposals for the same purpose, would be a less effective use of contributorsâ time (instead of focusing on creating value), rather a bureaucratic approach and less aligned with the web3 ethos.
The fact that the contributors of StakeborgDAO were able to closely collaborate and work together to design and agree on a common reward mechanism is, in our view, a success story and a good example.
4. From the lists of projects, DAOthon is the only project that doesnât have tangible results to show for it. This raises questions about their claim to retroactive rewards, as the proposal states.
A: We are surprised to see this as a concern from the SFC, as the DAOthon was one of the projects considered for the airdrop 3. Furthermore, it has been included as a successful example of community projects in the StakeborgDAO Quarterly Report.
The DAOthon team has a proposal ready, as well as further marketing assets (logo, banner, other visuals). The reason why the team withheld the posting of the proposal on Agora was to allow room for feedback rounds and discussions around this proposal. You can find their proposal on their Notion page here: Notion â The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.
5. There is also considerable dilution in the 2nd round (i.e rounds 2.1, 2.2) of distributing tokens, as rewards are given on members * reward basis.
A: We are not sure what this point refers to. If it is related to the DAOthon project being part of the list, then we addressed this matter in the previous answer.
6. There is a constant 50:50 ratio when distributing tokens between the two time frames (until 1 Apr and 1Apr-1Jul) that seems to disregard the fact that the first time frame is twice as big as the second (6 months as opposed to 3 months). One of the solutions couldâve been taking this into account among other factors.
A: When thinking about the timeframes, we took into account the starting date of the first community project, which happened at the beginning of December. Considering this, the first timeframe before April 1, covers four months. In addition, as stated above, this proposal was born from a continuous exchange and close collaboration between the StakeborgDAO contributors. This ratio, as the entire reward mechanism, has been shared and discussed in numerous meetings. We believe that through the application of the 5% coefficient and the four Coordinape rounds, we are as close to a meritocratic distribution as it gets.
Thank you again for the feedback. We will follow the usual process and move the proposal to Snapshot tomorrow, August 7, at 09:00 a.m. CEST.
I support this proposal,totaly agree with it.
WAGMI
I just votedâŠand I mixed feelings, on the one side I would love to see the proposal pass so that the contributors would have more voting power, they have put in a lot of hard work, so they deserve it!
on the other side I think that each project should do a dedicated proposal, and request funds for what they plan to build , and not asking funds for what was already done voluntarily, even though their work is highly appreciated!