Questions (click to expand)
- What are the Objectives and Key Results which have been identified for your project?
The following are the Objectives and the Key Results expected from this proposal:
The prime objective of this model is to identify and fund proposals for domains that align with the ApeCoin DAO’s vision in a community led and transparent manner. This way, the proposals funded through this model will directly add value to the DAO and the token holders.
- Increase in the number of contributors, proposals, and funded projects
- Increase in milestone and proposal completion rates
- Increase in NPS score from all proposers and grantees
- Low response turn around time to delegates’ and community’s queries
- Diversity in projects being funded across technologies, geographies, and demographics, to name a few. We encourage the community members to review the proposals across different domains during ApeCoin DAO community calls regularly
- Timely publishing of comprehensive monthly grants report, outlining the status, progress, and impact of the program, ensuring transparency and accountability
Enhanced Community Involvement
- Increase in community engagement across :
- Discord, Telegram
- Social media (Twitter, Reddit)
- Increase in the community members’ participation to keep domain allocators and program manager accountable (measured by the number of people looking at the dashboard and participating in the program)
- Increase in the homegrown leadership to run grant programs (measured by the number of people running grant programs)
- Strengthened contributors’ sentiment and word of mouth towards ApeCoin DAO measured through frequent sentiment surveys/ polls to gauge satisfaction
- Enhanced ApeCoin DAO brand recognition and awareness within contributor circles through surveys or social media analytics, tracking mentions, reach etc.
- Please elaborate on the team’s expectations for the future
Our expectation is for the ApeCoin DAO to find and fund innovative projects for domains that align with ApeCoin DAO’s vision in a community led and transparent manner. By funding proposals through delegated domain capital allocation model, community elected domain allocators can set maximum thresholds for accepting proposals within their respective domain. Proposals that fall below the threshold can be approved directly by domain allocators in a transparent manner, thus reducing the burden on the community and wait time for proposers while reserving the AIP process for proposals that exceed the threshold and require broader community input. Through our proposal, we aim to strengthen the DAO’s existing growth and diversification efforts in a sustainable manner and emerge as a key contributor within the ApeCoin ecosystem.
- Is the Ape Foundation expected to engage in any of the steps of the AIP implementation? If so, please specify the step and elaborate how it is expected to work.
While we do not foresee needing direct involvement from the Ape Foundation in implementing this AIP, we will greatly appreciate Ape Foundation’s support in setting up and funding the Grants SAFE and the 4 domain level SAFEs.
- Who grades the proposals and decides if they should be funded? Just the Domain Allocator of that area? Or other people too?
After reviewing the proposal based on the domain specific scoring rubric and inputs from the community, the domain allocators will accept/reject the proposals for their respective domains on Questbook. Once a proposal is approved, the program manager will then coordinate with the community to ensure that the proposal aligns with ApeCoin DAO’s values and areas of focus before making the disbursal through a 2/2 multi sig between the domain allocator and the program manager. The multi-sig’s sole purpose is to ensure capital is not siphoned. However, the allocators are encouraged to make independent decisions regarding the approval of the proposal based on their expertise.
- Anyone from the community can view and comment on the proposal on Questbook
Domain allocators will be required to review proposals based on a domain specific scoring rubric similar to as follows:
Domain Specific Rubrics
||No project developer team. No developer attraction.
||No dev team. Small attraction plan (1 to 5 devs).
||Yes team dev.
||Yes team dev. Small attraction plan (1 to 5 more devs).
||Yes team dev. Big attraction plan (+5 more devs).
||No commitment attraction
||Mercenary commitment attraction (stays until benefits end)
||Commitment attraction (1 to 3 months )
||Commitment attraction (1 year)
||Commitment attraction (3 year)
||Project does not have a reasonable chance to attract high-quality devs
||Project has a possibility of attracting high-quality devs
||Project has a reasonable possibility of attracting high-quality devs and/or has high-quality devs
||Project is likely to attract high-quality devs
||Project is highly likely to attract high-quality devs
|Likelihood of success
||Clear flaw in design that cannot be easily remedied
||Difficult to see the project continuing for more than a year
||Reasonable chance that the project has intermediate-to-long-term success (+1 Year)
||Project is likely to generate long-term, sustainable value for the ecosystem
||Project has substantial likelihood to generate long-term, sustainable value for the ecosystem
||Grant size significantly outweighs projected benefit
||Grant size is considerably larger than expected benefit
||Grant size is proportional to expected benefit
||Expected benefit outweighs grant size
||Expected benefit meaningfully exceeds grant size
||Team does not substantiate ability to deliver on plan
||Team does not show significant ability to deliver on plan
||Team shows reasonable ability to deliver on plan
||Team shows significant ability to deliver on plan
||Team exceeds what is required to deliver on plan
||Milestones do not significantly hold proposer accountable
||Milestones are unlikely to hold proposer accountable
||Milestones are reasonably likely to hold proposer accountable
||Milestones are significantly likely to hold proposer accountable
||Milestones are very likely to hold proposer accountable
|Demo included (binary yes/no)
||No demo included
|Discretionary Factors (comment required)**
- How are initial Domain Allocators selected? I see the AIP mentions Snapshot voting. Is this the ApeCoin DAO Snapshot or another one?
Interested community members will be required to self-nominate themselves and specify their domain of interest after this AIP is successfully passed. They must also provide details related to their relevant experience, domain specific rubrics, time commitment, and expected communication TAT with builders for their domain with the ApeCoin DAO community. All domain allocators will be chosen from within the ApeCoin community by the ApeCoin DAO community through a community vote on ApeCoin DAO Snapshot.
- Do Domain Allocators have terms and term limits?
Each domain allocator is elected for a term of one quarter through a community vote on ApeCoin DAO Snapshot. At the end of each quarter, the grants committee and the ApeCoin DAO community shall evaluate each domain’s and domain allocator’s performance using publicly available data, proposal acceptance/rejection rationale and the program KPIs. The outcomes could be as follows:
- Change the domain
- Change the allocator/program manager
- Change the budget
Once elected, each domain allocator will be required to specify domain specific evaluation rubrics to ensure alignment with ApeCoin DAO’s roadmap and funding of high quality proposals. Members of the ApeCoin DAO community can easily access and view the scores assigned to a proposal by the domain allocator, based on their domain-specific rubric similar to as follows:
- How many people will be on each multi - sig?
After this AIP is successfully passed and upon successful selection of all the domain allocators, a Grants SAFE, with 3/5 multi-sig, between the program manager and 4 elected domain allocators will be setup. We will then setup 4 different domain level SAFEs for each domain with a 2/2 between the program manager and the elected domain allocator.
The funds for the grants program will flow from the treasury into the Grants SAFE. This SAFE will hold the funds related to product fee, committee compensation, and the grants budget. Funds that will be disbursed to the grant proposers will reside in the respective domain-level SAFEs. The program manager will be responsible to update the community about approved proposals and their details through bi-weekly community calls and reports over discord.
- What is the overall grant request and how is it broken down?
Based on the valuable feedback given by the ApeCoin community members, community poll and our ongoing engagement with Compound, we have requested an overall budget of $1M ($500k per quarter) spread across two quarters to fund a wide variety of teams aligned with ApeCoin’s roadmap through Delegated Domain allocation Model. The breakdown of the proposed budget is as follows:
- Grant amount that will be disbursed to proposers across 4 domains by the elected domain allocators ~ $400k/quarter
- Program Manager: $100/hour at 20 hours per week (est. $24K per quarter)
- A Domain Allocator : $80/hour at 15hours/week (est. $14.4K per quarter per domain allocator)
Questbook : 3% of all disbursals made through Questbook as product fee (est. 15k per quarter)
The domain allocators and program manager will be required to track their hours and provide weekly reports that will be accessible to the community. If the domain allocators have clocked fewer hours than estimated, the total spend will be lower than the proposed spend. If there are fewer grant requests or smaller grant amount requests for a particular domain, the unused fund from every domain will be returned back to the treasury after two quarters. For instance, in the case of CGP 2.0, not all domain allocators spent an equal amount of time reviewing and funding proposals for their respective domains. Some domain allocators spent comparatively less time than the budgeted 15hrs/week due to the time required to review proposals and the volume of proposals received within their domain. Moreover, the proposed budget represents the maximum amount needed to ensure the success of the program and to avoid the need for frequent community ratification for budgets for the proposed funding model. It does not guarantee that all the proposed expenses will be incurred. The unused fund from every domain will be returned back to the treasury after two quarters. The proposed maximum spend per quarter is expected to remain constant for the proposed budget/quarter and is not expected to increase every quarter.
The proposed compensation is based on the valuable feedback given by the ApeCoin community members, community poll and our ongoing engagement with Compound. It is competitive with some of the best-run grants program and community initiatives of ecosystems such as Compound, Uniswap, Nouns DAO, and ApeCoin DAO Working Group. Based on our experience after working with multiple reputed ecosystems, a domain may receive more than 20 quality proposals per month. To effectively support and fund exceptional teams, domain allocators will need to invest significant time in activities such as marketing, project research, calls with proposers, preparing reviews, exchanging info/feedback with other DAs, tracking teams’ progress, and coordinating milestone based payouts. These activities demand significant expertise and time commitment. It is crucial for ApeCoin DAO to attract top talent for the role of domain allocator to ensure that exceptional projects are funded.
Our approach of charging a percentage of the grants disbursed as product fee is designed to align our incentives with delivering value as against product usage. Funding a project signifies that the ecosystem has identified a project worth investing in, which further indicates that various steps in the funding process, such as attracting quality builders, establishing evaluation rubrics, and ensuring successful milestone-based payouts, have been executed effectively by the domain allocators. Our intention is to charge based on the successful completion of all these steps, rather than just product usage, to align our pricing with the value delivered through the entire grant disbursal cycle.
- Do you provide consent to share these questions and answers with the community in this forum?
Absolutely! We are strong proponents of running all governance processes in a transparent and community first manner.
A DAR package is being worked on and upon completion this AIP will move into Administrative Review. Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.