This is a formal proposal to acquire $DEAN tokens and use these tokens to get valuable specific detailed feedback on Grape Access. This intel will enable us to improve Grape Access further and make it more attractive to new and existing communities.
2. Grape Proposal Overview:
We as a DAO have observed that Grape Access is no longer perceived as the top-notch solution for verification on Solana. This realization came through two different avenues.
First: Word-of-mouth, conversations on CT and on other Discords like @TheRipTydeshared recently.
Second: the launch of our GAN token resulted in significantly lower numbers of holders with more than 1 GAN than we expected. To date, there are 38 such holders. Our expectation was around 10x more.
Now is the time to take a deep breath, roll up our sleeves and get to work improving Grape Access. Through the Dean’s List feedback we will know what we specifically can improve on - this will let us get started directly on the improvements and guarantee that we are working on what is important to our users.
3. Stakeholders
Grape DAO, GAN DAO, Dean’s List DAO
4. Costs/Resource Requirements:
The Dean’s List DAO auctions their Feedback Services each week. The last auction finished at 6 DEAN. So I am proposing that we as a DAO acquire 6 DEAN and be prepared to spend this on the auction.
If someone outbids this initial investment then the DAO Board could decide to step in with the Agility Fund.
Currently, the price of 6 DEAN is 10321.466371 GRAPE. I think we can naturally reasonably agree that this is a fair price for the detailed feedback that we are expecting to receive.
I agree with this too. Additional plus is that we wouldn’t’ have to spend resources to the Dean Team about how it should work in the first place. If not we have this video from Whales: GRAPE protocol - Solana SZN Hackathon submission - YouTube
I would nominate @Whales as Grape’s POC for this commitment.
Not agreeing in this since most if not all of Dean List are Grape members.
Nothing wrong with it but I think we shouldn’t rely on at least this time, not really rely but get a opinion/feedback on Grape related content when we have an extensive list of DAO members, DAO core and a DAO board where we can discuss internally about improvment.
So in general my opinion in this is should we really get feedback from a different Community which is backed by $GRAPE where most are the same Grape members who are in our Community?
Cause this just says the Community/DAO are not reliable enough to provide feedback on focused improvement. And so we need to rely on Grape backed Community where feedback is heavily appreciated and rewarded.
This is clearly can be handled many ways for example instead of acquiring $DEAN and get the feedback we could create a Bounty for this feedback. This is just an option, surely there are others.
This is clearly my opinion/feeback on this matter.
We should create a bounty for all the reasons we haven’t been able to figure out yet
and if the bounty is not completed within the requested period, then we should hire Deanslist.
Deanslist, within a week, analyzes the products and services offered by a project, delivers a well-written final document clarifying the indications offered by the members and, a twitter space with the project at the end.
This is the main reason why I proposed using Deanslist. We have a set timeline and the people that do it have experience with it. Even with a high Completion Reward we have no set timeline on a Bounty.
Doesn’t make sense asking for feedback from common Grape Community members from other Community when we have them in our Community.
I’m saying this since we now have the bounties where they can be created and accepted.
It doesn’t really make sense at least for me, so like we need to buy $DEAN to get the feedback from our own Grape Community members? How come we can’t get the feedback now literally through a discussion with Grape members and if that doesn’t work out we go for a bounty.
I don’t know if this is on the spectrum of what makes sense or not, but I see no problem going through Deanslist because the people there are incentivized to do the work and there’s a time frame. Every member of GRAPE who buys DEAN and joins deanslist knows they are there to provide feedback, so why delegate the task elsewhere?
Also, the grape DAO following due process by setting up a bounty for deanslist just like every other project creates positive competition, shows our values are not just for face value, and sends the signal that we won’t make exceptions easily.
If a bounty outside deanslist is set, how many people are allowed to take part? Is it gonna be conducted in a structured format like deanslist? How much participation can we guarantee? If your argument was very strong, grape members should already have given feedback without setting up a bounty. I brought the issue in the DAO board channel and the suggestion I got from kirk was probably pass it through deanslist (because they are the workforce with the required specialization on that). If there was any other place more worthy of getting the feedback, it should be in this channel but not getting it there is understandable since every member has delegated tasks they might be occupied with.
Current progress, bounty cannot be accepted as we do not have enough Dean tokens. Path forward 1. We could add the additional 21 Dean tokens as Grape or 2. The Grape Access Network sub dao will make a proposal to request feedback as a bounty which can be completed by anyone.
