February and March Emissions

This is an imperfect analysis, of imperfect individuals in an imperfect world. It is one we have come up with to get the ball rolling.

We have assessed our current members and the feedback provided by the sub-dao leaders and have adjusted emissions proportionate to that as best as we could.

-activity in DAO
-activity in sub-dao
-class level
-feedback from leaders
-Preformatted text

If there is any issue please comment down below where you feel something that is incorrect.

The plan is to move forth and execute this as an on-chain proposal if no feedback or counter proposal is put forth.

These are numbers that would include both February and March emissions.
Overall represents more than 50% decrease in emissions for the past 2 epochs

:red_circle: No emissions
:green_circle: Granted emissions
50% cut
put up (increased emissions)

Reviews and completed by DyNite and Riptyde

Reviewed and completed by Taki

Reviewed and completed by Taki

Reviewed and completed by Taki

Reviewed and completed by Taki

Reviewed and completed by Taki

Reviewed and completed by Kirk

Reviewed and completed by Dim

Reviewed and completed by Dim and DyNite


DAO Board:
Reviewed and completed by Dim and Dynite

NFT COuncil:
Reviewed and completed by Dean

Gaming Council:
Reviewed and completed by RipTyde

Reviewed and completed by DyNite and Dim


NFT council and Gaming Council need to be looked at again.
For next epochs emissions we will be looking at a different set of criteria entirely.


Why is everything in Reps/Pres red, does this mean nobody gets emissions in that category? Don’t think that would be fair to kirk.


Had a chat on the DAO Call that this role was not really established and was just a tryout. If @kirk is alright with forfeiting the Reps/Pres emissions then everything is good.

1 Like

just to give some further insight on this (with the understanding that emissions for the gaming council, NFT council, and organizers are not final from our side) the TOTAL skill role emissions for BOTH these months equate to 1,260,792 GRAPE in TOTAL.

This constitutes a total slash in emissions by 58% for the two months under consideration. We hope that this is a middle ground that can be accepted by everyone so we can move forward.


Good job guys, I understand that it is very difficult to correctly gauge the contribution of so many members across different subDAOs.

From my perspective, as a member of the CC & Org subDAOs, I believe that the respective emissions are fair enough.

1 Like

Can you share the spreadsheet that has the final allocations per person all in one sheet?



Final allocations have not been created on an “end list”

I am assuming there will be adjustments…but this is the sheet we are working from.

1 Like

Ok, my feedback is this proposal CANT go onchain without the final end list completed.

I personally would not feel comfortable to vote on this until we have at least 72 hours of time to give feedback on the end result

Just double checked the Grape Gaming Council emissions with with gang.

Could [TAG] Portor be put down for 5k $Grape rewards for his March contributions to the GGC. He has been an active part of the council throughout March, contributing to discord discussions, actively attending and having input in each GGC call while helping with design and getting rolling with streams.

We might be premature adding dethelor to the list of GGC members, he has the GGC tag, and I beleive he’s interested in getting involved, we may see more from him in May/ months to come but yet to be actively participating.



This was just to get some feedback on specific sub-daos or councils. Then a final end list will have complied with everything added up. Giving a bit of time for feedback then will push the end list right after.

this check out to you?




i’m fine with everything :heart:

NFT council as well, not sure who is the point of contact there

1 Like

that would be me – i sent it to you in daoboard channel

1 Like

Ive made a new counter proposal for emissions


Thank you for making that.
All the individuals you mentioned in the post were highlighted for a much higher allocation in the next epoch due to their clear contributions. I should’ve made that clear on this post those were the next steps.

This was meant to take care of the past 2 epochs, then move onto April identifying said exceptional members (which had mostly been done) and rewarding them then.
-as for which amount, I wanted to discuss what was fair

Your proposal is great taking into account what we now have or understand that should be rewarded, but we had different criteria before (be it a "month’ or an “epoch”) and expectation of the DAO that we tried to be cognizant of.

I am all for whichever model that presses us forward into GRAPEs future plans.