Great to hear that Vul! Tracking progress and bringing more transparency to the process! I look forward to seeing the results of your efforts! As you said, busy Summer!
-Mr. Hype 
6 Likes
I think this aligns with @CEOofWeb3.0 current AIP which is live on snapshot. Havnt read comments yet
3 Likes
Set up something similar. Will need input from authors to actually get that running
2 Likes
Yes, on the UI side probably similar/same to @CEOofWeb3.0’s idea and that part is important/necessary.
In the end I’d like to get to the process side, i.e. how are funds distributed based on KPIs? But first I am asking if we’re even tracking KPIs/progress to begin with.
I’m thinking of submitting a proposal that creates some basic structure for funds dispersal based on progress b/c giving away entire 100% of requested amount when the amount is large just based on a popularity contest vote / a deck presentation seems… dangerous. Maybe 33% first, then if KPIs are achieved - the next 33%, etc.
3 Likes
Thank you so much for bringing up this much-needed topic Sasha!!
Linking @Vulkan’s solution which he created as part of his DAO Secretary mandate from AIP-239 for those interested in latest developments:
2 Likes
Thanks, Halina! I did happen to see that, it’s great.
Now that we have / will have a tracker system, I’m going to submit a proposal to restrict funding to milestone accomplishments to alleviate fear many have when voting re: funding 100% of something based on a single deck/presentation. It won’t be rigid - I think all proposals will miss KPIs by some amount - but ridig enough to where full funding isn’t automatic if KPIs are entirely missed and it’s clear the proposal is a rug or failure (based on manual review).
The checkpoints/milestones would be just 50% of time passed for smaller proposals (under $250K but longer than 6 months), and 30% then 60% for larger ones (> 1 year or > $250K). Exact numbers up for debate.
Proposals that meet KPIs (or close enough) at checkpoints would continue to get automatic milestone funding, so no changes for honest/successful ones. What do you think? Or just post once it’s an AIP Idea, whichever you prefer.
2 Likes
Thanks, Sasha.
It’s yet another thing that’s shocking, confounding and disappointing it wasn’t in place since Day 1.
I’m unsure of how to best word it at the moment… would you please consider including something about not coming back for more funding before launching the original project?
We’ve already seen funded initiatives come back asking for much more for much grander versions of a given project without actually lunching or proving any viability / demand for the scope that was initially funded. That should be a non-starter.
1 Like
I think perhaps if they do submit a new AIP (and it’s asking for $), facilitators/stewards should have permission to add a flag to it that notifies voters of previous failure to achieve expected results?
The question of not letting someone submit an AIP is a whole can of worms that comes with delicious sides of censorship, corruption, etc. and I’d rather avoid that. But informing voters of someone’s track record seems easy and non-controversial. What do you think?
1 Like
Could and should be a concern for most of what goes on here, AND yes great points.
Problem may be whether facilitators correctly view that as a “failure to achieve”.
If you’re suggesting adding language to your AIP mandating such an event be flagged and not left up to opinion of forum mods, then yes that seems a big step forward.
How to define it … time frame maybe, or …?
2 Likes
Let me post the AIP Idea in the next day or two and I’d love your comments./ feedback there!! It’s definitely not clear-cut and input from everyone will be very important.
3 Likes
Just a quick note that many AIPs include milestone funding provisions already.
In general I like the idea that grant recipients have a pathway to prove themselves and then are able to request larger grants, but I’m not sure of the best mechanics for this process.
Looking forward to seeing your proposal!
2 Likes
Only by voluntarily request of authors, right? There’s no system/requirement for it, which I think should be the default setup as the vast majority of proposals have no need for full upfront funding.
2 Likes
Most authors realize that there’s a better chance for a proposal to pass if they’re not taking unnecessary custody of funds.
Hopefully ways to move this on-chain in the future so stricter treasury control and less manual oversight
2 Likes
Yeah, those honest authors are great! Also not the ones I’m concerned with 
Would be cool for facilitators to just have “Approve progress update” button that released the next leg of funding immediately without requiring multi-sig again… hmm if my new AIP passes, I’ll look into what that system would cost.
6 Likes
I love this idea. While follow ups should definitely be here but we need some sort of reminder/notification on twitter. If I’m following a topic on Discourse, I get an email notification but with the large number of mails I get daily, I tend to miss some of them. However if ai follow some account that regularly tweets about the AIP and I engage with those tweets, the algorithm gets them to me more often. Just an idea.
4 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.