Hi @ruchil,
Your topic will be moving to the AIP Draft phase in less than 24 hours. Are you content with the feedback received or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?
If we do not hear from you within 48 hours after your topic closes, your topic will be moved straight to the AIP Draft process.
We look forward to hearing from you.
-Vulkan
Hi @vulkan.admin , we kindly request a brief period of 24-48 hours to address the feedback and questions raised by the community members.
Re: We would like to extend the discussion for another 7 days.
Thanks!
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
@ruchil has requested to extend the community discussion period for this AIP idea. This topic will automatically close a further 7 days from now. We encourage the community to continue to engage in thoughtful discussions through constructive criticism, honest feedback, and helpful suggestions.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
-Vulkan
Hi @sasha, thanks for sharing your thoughts and feedback. 
The reason I asked if Questbook managed Uniswap, Compound, and/or Aave is because you provided numbers for these three as a justification to my concern that Questbook’s costs are significant/too high. But if Questbook also ran programs for those entities, then you’re just comparing your costs to your own costs, not to competition or industry average.
Questbook was responsible for launching only Compound Grants Program from scratch. Aave Grants Program and Uniswap Grants Program were initiated and supported by their respective communities without any involvement from Questbook. An operational spend of over 13% of the grants program budget was ratified by the community as a means to incentivize the allocators to source and fund the best proposals while being accountable to the community and proposers.
Similar operational and compensation structures are utilized in other grants programs and working groups
Ethereum Foundation - ~11% of the overall budget
To summarize, my feedback would be that the gist/idea/concept is cool (as an experiment to get some proposals jumpstarted) but prices are, imho, astronomical. Based on my time doing this very job, you don’t need more than 1 manager and 1 analyst (i.e. domain allocator) at most, though I am still of the opinion that the analyst isn’t needed (you can outsource the outreach for $10-15K and then just review apps that land in the funnel).
Really appreciate your recognition of the Delegated Domain Capital Allocation model 
. We believe that to evaluate and source proposals effectively, one needs to have expertise in the relevant domain. It can be a difficult and inefficient task to assess projects that are outside of one’s area of expertise, which will lead to missing out on valuable contributions to the ApeCoin ecosystem. By delegating capital and decision-making responsibilities to experts in the field who are closely involved in that domain, ApeCoin DAO will be able to find and fund projects that align with the mission of the ApeCoin DAO, while also addressing any blind spots individuals may have outside their expertise if they are evaluating all the proposals alone by themselves.
The software license cost of $50,000 for 6-9 months seems very unreasonable for what is essentially a customized Trello/Notion.
Questbook is a decentralized on-chain grants management platform that is trusted by some of the most reputed ecosystems to run their grant programs. There are several significant advantages of using Questbook over Airtable and Notion:
Transparency in the review process and decision-making: Questbook allows anyone from the community to view the domain-specific rubrics set by the domain allocator and understand why a proposal was either accepted or rejected. This helps proposers to revise and resubmit their proposals based on rubric scores and domain allocator’s, community feedback. This level of transparency is not always available in the current process and on Notion/Airtable, where proposers often do not receive feedback on why their proposal was accepted or rejected. One such example is given below for reference.
A transparent review process and decision-making will also provide greater insight into the performance of the domain allocator to the ApeCoin community based on which the community will re-elect/replace the domain allocators through a Snapashot vote.
Overall, the total cost of this proposal (25-35% of the entire allocated budget) for 6-9 months is 2.5-3.5x above what I know to be reasonable from my experience. Beyond 9 months, the prices become entirely untenable, so any long-term licensing/work with the DAO is off the table (imho). Whether you can reduce by 2.5-3.5x is your call, but that’s what I’d like to see before voting yes. Others may have a different opinion.
ps: Above I say “as an experiment” because this proposal, if approved, completely circumvents DAO’s current approval process/system. This opens a whole new can of worms if it’s not done as a one-off experiment.
With $181M as the total allocated grants budget as per the Ape Foundation transparency report, we are requesting only 0.5% of that budgeted funds to be used to fund high quality proposals through Delegated Domain Capital Allocation Model. As this will be a community run initiative, at the end of each quarter, the community will decide whether to change domains, domain allocators, increase/decrease the budget.
The proposed budget represents the maximum amount needed to ensure the success of the grants program and to avoid the need for frequent community ratification for budgets for the proposed ApeCoin DAO Grants Program. It does not guarantee that all the proposed expenses will be incurred. Moreover, it does not scale with time period and amounts to a constant figure/quarter.
The rationale behind the proposed number and type of domains, domain allocators’ compensation, and product fee is provided in the following links:
Additionally, we would love to receive more inputs from the community members and would like to conduct a community poll to gather additional feedback. We welcome all members of the community to participate in the poll and share their opinions on the proposed domains, hourly compensation, and product fee. Your inputs will help us finalise the domains, grants program spend and proceed towards finalizing the domain allocators accordingly.
0 voters
0 voters
0 voters
0 voters
Why did I got a notification from this thread tho? o.O
Am I missing something?
Thank you for your inquiry, @Evil . It is possible that you received a notification because of my response or because your proposal was referenced above as an example to emphasize the importance of greater transparency in the review and decision-making process for proposals submitted to grant programs.
Ah makes sense!
Good luck (;
Those 11-13% numbers from other DAOs are are indeed more aligned with the target cost I’ve pointed to as target numbers, which this proposal in its current form misses by 2-3x.
I’d just like to add that I think it’s not fair to compare a proposal budget to the total size of the treasury and such comparisons should be categorically avoided. I could say that my own proposal is just 0.015% so quick, guys, just click yes! But that is a terrible way to allocate funds. All proposals should stand on their own and judged in isolation. It’s never about how much money it needs; it’s always about how that money will be used.
Thanks again @Sasha for sharing your thoughts!
Those 11-13% numbers from other DAOs are are indeed more aligned with the target cost I’ve pointed to as target numbers, which this proposal in its current form misses by 2-3x
We have presented a broad range of data points across multiple grant programs to provide a comprehensive view of spending patterns across different ecosystems. Our goal is to provide the ApeCoin community members with all the relevant data points to help them make an informed decision on our proposal and the associated polls.
We acknowledge that the committee compensation and product fee (cost) constituting 11% - 13% of the total proposed grants program budget ($500k/quarter) will lead to reduction in cost. However, if revised to 11% - 13% of the total proposed grants program budget, the current proposed cost will be 1.1x - 1.3x of the revised cost.
We want to reemphasize that sourcing, reviewing, funding, marketing, tracking and nurturing proposals for each domain demands significant expertise and time commitment from domain allocators and they should be fairly and competitively compensated for their efforts. Additionally, the proposed budget represents the maximum amount needed to ensure the success of the grants program and to avoid the need for frequent community ratification for budgets for the proposed ApeCoin DAO Grants Program.
We would love to receive more inputs from the community members and welcome them to participate in the polls to help us finalise the domain, grants program spend and proceed towards finalizing the domain allocators accordingly
I’d just like to add that I think it’s not fair to compare a proposal budget to the total size of the treasury and such comparisons should be categorically avoided. I could say that my own proposal is just 0.015% so quick, guys, just click yes! But that is a terrible way to allocate funds. All proposals should stand on their own and judged in isolation. It’s never about how much money it needs; it’s always about how that money will be used.
Really appreciate you sharing your thoughts on this ! We completely agree that proposals should be judged based on how the allocated funds will be used and their potential impact, rather than the proportion of the total treasury they represent 
Our mention of the proposed spend as a percentage of the total treasury was meant to provide context and transparency, and not as a justification for the spend. We appreciate ApeCoin DAO for being open to making an independent decision regarding the budget and the cost. This demonstrates the strength and commitment of the community to evaluate proposals based on their merit.
While we acknowledge that comparing a proposal budget to the total size of the treasury may not be the sole or most effective method of evaluating or determining budget allocations, we believe that it can help the ApeCoin DAO community to understand the size of the allocation and build mental models around it. A similar framework can also be seen used by the Ape foundation transparency report and the Apecoin Ecosystem Fund Allocation proposal as mentioned below.
This topic was automatically closed after 7 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
Hi @ruchil,
Your topic will be moving to the AIP Draft phase in less than 24 hours. Are you content with the feedback received or do you wish to extend community discussion for another 7 days?
If we do not hear from you within 48 hours after your topic closes, your topic will be moved straight to the AIP Draft process.
We look forward to hearing from you.
-Vulkan
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
The AIP Draft submitted is currently incomplete and feedback has been provided to the author.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
Thank you,
Vulkan
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
@ruchil has completed editing their AIP Idea to be their AIP Draft.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
Kind Regards,
-Vulkan
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
Edits have been made to this Topic, by the author or by the author’s request. You can click the Pencil icon at the top of the post to see these edits.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
Kind Regards,
-Vulkan
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
Edits have been made to this Topic, by the author or by the author’s request. You can click the Pencil icon at the top of the post to see these edits.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
Kind Regards,
-Vulkan
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
Our team has reviewed and discussed @ruchil’s AIP Draft and have sent a list of initial questions. We await answers.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
Kind Regards,
-Vulkan
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
@ruchil has responded to our questions and has provided consent to share them in this forum for the community.
- 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.
Program Success
Enhanced Community Involvement
Brand Awareness
- 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.
Domain allocators will be required to review proposals based on a domain specific scoring rubric similar to as follows:
Domain Specific Rubrics
| Score | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Team | |||||
| Reach | 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). |
| Team | |||||
| Commitment | No commitment attraction | Mercenary commitment attraction (stays until benefits end) | Commitment attraction (1 to 3 months ) | Commitment attraction (1 year) | Commitment attraction (3 year) |
| Team | |||||
| Quality | 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 | 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 assessment | 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 |
| Milestone Assessment | 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 | Demo included | |||
| Score | -2 | -1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 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:
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:
Compensation
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.
Kind Regards,
-Vulkan
Hi ApeCoin DAO Community,
We have sent a list of follow up questions to the author.
Follow this Topic as further updates will be posted here in the comments.
Kind Regards,
-Vulkan
