Love the initiative, but I disagree with sending to a single user wallet and that the proposal lacks a clear Discourse discussion. I’d vote YES if it were Multisig on Realms or Squads and a clear outline provided in Discourse, so as to have clearer feedback and users to volunteer for multisig management and distribution against the criteria.
I would Vote YES if 3 Key Points were better defined & supported with clearer logic, reviewed and confirmed by the DAO collectively: (1) Formula/Logic (2) Reward Amounts & (3) Multi-sig Approval/Management.
I support the overall initiative and believe all active members deserve rewards for Proposals & Voting. I am in favor of progress, and applaud @Whale_s_Friend for taking initiative to move forward with “concept”, but this process is unclear and overlooks some key insights already outlined in the past. There’s no multisig & the total amount being rewarded is now clearer.
In March, April AND May - I provided 4 separate outlines, Discourse proposal ideas, discussed on calls, and took even created votes to clearly outline expectations and transparency about what rewards methods & amounts could be, with suggested approaches.
I also voted NO and I was not in favor of the way we spent the 500k $GRAPE in the first place, which I pointed out during our DAO Call. I’m not against rewarding valuable proposals. I’m agreeing with @Arximedis and I’d like to add that I strongly recommend setting a cap. Both, on the amount per proposal and on the maximum amount a member can get as a reward (or maybe halving each reward per additional proposal for a member).
Setting aside a budget for rewarding proposals per month is a good idea, but we’re not forced to spend it all by splitting it between all proposals of that month.
I just realized that @Takisoul is being awarded for only one of the three proposals he put forward in September.
Although I do agree it would be more appropriate to have a single proposal (reduce proposal spam)
It was technically not possible to create a single proposal, as the Grape, and USDC are taken from two different governance accounts :
mRh2wFi6rQEoFzWKQ2KsyMySZ36NEmyL5qTv7H6J7vs & 6jEQpEnoSRPP8A2w6DWDQDpqrQTJvG4HinaugiBGtQKD
So the least number of possible proposals was 2.
If this was a program awarding the rewards, there would be no bias as to what qualifies and what doesn’t as all three proposals had successfully been voted for and executed.
If the author could have done one proposal he would have. The requirement for two is a limitation of realms. I considered it and decided that it would not be fair to consider it as multiple since it would only encourage spam. If the majority agrees with @BillysDiscord, I am happy to change the number of successful proposals.
Example of spam: One proposal for each breakpoint ticket.
It is the reason I assigned two proposals to @CryptoPawz.
PS: I have not done the distribution yet (wanted the DAO call to happen first) as I was sure people will not be happy (what a surprise).
Just doing a simulation of a program running the rules bellow:
The program holds the $GRAPE for the duration (30 days)
At the end of the period, the program will distribute grape to the addresses connected to all Successful proposals (that include at least one instruction).
The amount of $GRAPE sent to each address should follow: “Amount of Grape in the Program” divided by “Number of Successful proposals”
Technically Dynites proposal does not have a instruction attached, so the program would ignore it.
Do I think not awarding the proposal is right, no. But if we were strictly trying to enforce the rules in this experiemnt, the proposal would not be eligible for automatic distribution.
In addition it’s debatable if those three proposals were seen as 1, if one of the 2 proposals @Takisoul created did not pass for Grape or USDC distribution wouldn’t we recognize that they were indeed seen as different proposals?
@Whale_s_Friend note that the intention of the feedback and criticism is not to stop the initiative but improve it and see it succeed. The fact that you initiated and took action, is the first step to explore what would happen if a program was automatically allocating Grape rewards to successful proposals.
Im disappointed that we’ve turned energy into inaction
The proposal has initiated discussion to reach consensus. If this is seen as inaction, maybe we should stop discussing and put everything on chain where we are then unable to execute on proposals with no clear instructions.
Its October 10th – lets see if any of the No voters take the initiative to have something else in place
It’s also October 10th and the proposal hasn’t been executed yet, so it’s premature to discuss extending it.
Voting no, is taking action vs passively supporting proposals which might have flaws and could cause issues in the future.
Hundreds of factors affect the decision to vote or abstain
Voting no; simply because there are no clear instructions on this proposal, rewards a single snapshot rather than a total of all governance proposals made historically; now a no vote means we participate in decision making with the proposal which can be improved (this is not a no towards dao members making proposals, and if they should be rewarded), as this is a discussion:
Proposal discussion made
People cast and participate in this poll
I don’t believe the role of any yes or no participant is to improve a proposal if they don’t want to, this was a public poll
To me the Reward Distribution had a clear aim to encourage more proposal submissions, objectively speaking we haven’t seen an increase in proposal submissions, so to me it seems fair to stop the initiative as it hasn’t achieved its aim.