Do we have a system for following up with approved AIPs about how they’ve been going? Even if we release funds all at once, it’s a great record to have so that we can see history of returning AIP authors. Fool me once kinda thing. Also so we can help if they’re struggling.
Maybe have ApeCoin recipients check in at 1/3 and 2/3 points of their timeline, or 50% and 75%. Are they on time, ahead, delayed, facing unexpected challenges? What’s the updated timeline or tradeoffs they had to make, features they maybe have to drop/reconsider.
This is especially important for larger projects using considerable amounts of ApeCoin.
Update May 9: thanks for the feedback! kicked off this AIP to address this topic:
Totally agree, I think its crucial to have a system in place to follow up with approved AIPs and track and promote their progress. In the next couple of weeks we intend to write a follow up to our 3 approved AIPs. Where do you think these follow ups should live to maximize discoverability? Twitter? Discourse? Discord?
I was thinking here, either some way the original AIP can be edited (but only added to?) or if that’s complicated then maybe a new “Follow-up” category where a post is created for every accepted AIP.
For example, AIP-000 gets approved, FU-000 is created (or AIP-000-FU) right away (auto or by admin) with just this body: “The first follow-up is expected by [date that’s 1/3rd of AIP timeline + 15 days]”
So if AIP-000 is a 6-months endeavor and funds are released on Apr 1, then AIP-000-FU text says “The first follow-up is expected by June 16.” Only the AIP creator can edit that post or they can send content to a moderator.
100% agree on tracking grant recipients against OKRs. This is something we’ve discussed as a working group initiative as it makes sense to build a robust system to support the work that would need to be done to be effective. Look forward to more thoughts on the best way to do this!
I think this should almost be a requirement, no? Providing follow-ups would have a positive effect on community involvement as well. I, for one, would love to see updates on a project I voted Yes for, especially if I were passionate about what they were bringing to the table.
Agreed… Might be an idea to create channels in both Discourse and Discord for this. I would also be in favour of breaking down some of these huge amounts into reasonable draws because as far as I know, there is very little in place - if anything - to prevent bad actors from walking with funding. And given the size of some of these requests we’re starting to see, morals tend to get murky for some people. We need to be staying in front of this.
There may actually be a few things that should be re-evaluated for larger grant payouts and the overall larger grant process.
Agree with the above points on the need for a check-in system of sorts. But by the same token, presumably there needs to be an ability to reclaim unspent APE and return it to the DAO. If a previously approved initiative is not meeting planned targets (for whatever reason…there could be many), surely the community wouldn’t want to keep ‘flogging a dead horse’, and instead a decision is made that the initiative isn’t working out as planned, and unspent funds are returned to the DAO.
Just as a reference, Filecoin will issue a 5k microgrant, then you would need to give a small report each month, this used to be at end of 3 month period, but they updated it recently. This is great if you want to buidl a small idea to go next level.
You get all the support you need, they are a lttle different as they have a big dev family you can tap into for help.
The next grant level is 15k and gets a little more involved.
Personally, the more things live entirely on Discourse the better. While I also appreciate the value of other platforms like Twitter and Discord, I would want information available that ties everything back to Discourse. The question for me is to what degree would Discourse Moderators be responsible for communicating with, say, Discord Mods, to ensure that the same communication is being shared on other platforms in a timely manner? Once an AIP update is released on Discourse, is the Discourse Mod given access to the Discord channel to share the update there as well? If not, how is the information cross-pollinated? Same would apply to Twitter of course, as well as any other communications platform we might utilize down the line.
The more platforms we involve, the more streamlined and efficient the level of communication, collaboration and responsiveness, especially when the Moderators of each platform are not going to be the same person. I acknowledge the value of these various comms platforms, but question the efficiency of synchronous updates involving multiple parties responsible for maintaining that communication.
It’s tricky, right? I mean, many people never have used Discourse before, but use Discord (for example) every day… so we’d be meeting them where they are. On the other hand, all the action is here on Discourse.