[VOTE] Create $GRAPE Strategic Fund For Time-Sensitive Allocation

DAO
1

1. Proposal Purpose:

Following the discussion regarding the need for DAO Treasury $GRAPE Allocation for initiatives that meet certain criteria and will be subject to a unique voting process that could be required to allocate funds for strategic time-sensitive allocations. Typically, any vote that involves Treasury Funds, whether $GRAPE or otherwise, must have an on-chain vote to release funds.

This vote enumerates 3 core focuses:
A.) Strategic Fund Budget Maximum per Epoch
B.) Stakeholders Responsible to Approve
C.) Criteria for $GRAPE Strategic Fund Allocation or Usage

2. Grape Proposal Overview:

A.) Strategic Fund Budget Maximum Per Epoch: 500,000 GRAPE (proposed and subject to suggestions/changes)

i. Fund maximum is the $GRAPE (or token) available to the fund in any given Epoch. Does not accumulate over time.
ii. Funds not used in an Epoch, roll over to the next Epoch.
iii. Funds used and depleted in an Epoch are replenished in the next Epoch.
iv. Fund Budget Maximum amount changes are subject to on-chain vote.
v. Fund utilization is subject to a vote and approval by a “committee” that can authorize the use of funds, following a clear proposal submission via Discourse & successful vote by “committee” members.

B.) Stakeholders Permitted to Responsible to Approve: DAO Board & Treasury/NFT Council

i. DAO must approve the Fund Budget Maximum Strategic Fund with an On-Chain Vote with a given Epoch.
ii. DAO Board and Treasury or NFT Council must review and approve all requests for allocation from the Strategic Fund
iii. Proposals must be submitted via Discourse by any DAO member for documentation, review and approval
iv. Receipt and utilization Strategic Fund budget for any initiative, any proposal must clearly outline and explain what the funds are intended for, who will receive them, when they are needed, and why or how the funds will be used to create value, awareness, or, contribute back to GRAPE.
v. All Requests must have signoff from DAO Board AND Treasury Council Members (where relevant, the appropriate SubDAO Board where/when applicable)

C.) Criteria for Allocation or Usage

i. Grape Membership Opportunities to acquire selected, talented, or, valuable additions as New GRAPE Members capable of providing value, contributions, or work to the GRAPE Community.
ii. Testing of New Time-Sensitive Features or Solutions that could help expedite connections, integrations, or new value accretive models worthy of exploration or assessment prior to wide-scale implementation for GRAPE Tools, Community, DAO/SubDAO or Partnership Opportunities.
iii. Targeted Rewards to New Partners, Bounties or Initiatives that could be deemed valuable to the GRAPE Community or associated with a prospect Partner or Group of Individuals (similar to i. but with a specific target on Group/Partner/Project)

3. Stakeholders

1. Requestor Eligibility [Preferably, DAO Members would be the only eligible members capable of submitting requests related to usage of $GRAPE Strategic Fund budget or allocations. Sub-DAO Members would be subject to additional DAO consideration if the request was deemed beneficial to the overall GRAPE Community, DAO or Strategic Initiatives of a given SubDAO working to cultivate value for GRAPE.]
2. GRAPE DAO Board [Review & Approval]
3. Treasury or NFT Councils [Review & Approval]
4. GRAPE SubDAO Board(s) [Review & Approval to be escalated to #2+#3 for Review & Approval]

4. Costs/Resource Requirements:

Proposed Strategic Fund Budget Allocation: 500,000 $GRAPE per Epoch.

PLEASE SEE THE 3 SEPARATE VOTES BELOW - THE FIRST IS TO APPROVE THE OVERALL PROPOSAL & MAXIMUM AMOUNTS CURRENTLY IN $GRAPE ONLY.

A.) Strategic Fund Budget Maximum per Epoch
B.) Stakeholders Responsible to Approve
C.) Criteria for Allocation or Usage

VOTE on A.) CREATE STRATEGIC FUND with MAXIMUM BUDGET
  • :white_check_mark: YES - 400,000 $GRAPE Max per Epoch
  • :white_check_mark: YES - 500,000 $GRAPE Max per Epoch (suggested)
  • :white_check_mark: YES - 600,000 $GRAPE Max per Epoch
  • :white_check_mark: YES - Change Maximum Amounts per Epoch (Comments)
  • :x: NO - VOTE AGAINST PROPOSAL. DO NOT CREATE FUND.
0 voters
VOTE on B.) GRAPE STAKEHOLDERS ELIGIBLE TO REQUEST & APPROVE
  • :white_check_mark: YES - GRAPE DAO members are the ONLY eligible requestors
  • :white_check_mark: YES - GRAPE DAO Board must Review & Approve
  • :white_check_mark: YES - GRAPE Treasury Council must Review & Approve
  • :white_check_mark: YES - BUT, Change Stakeholders to Approve (Comments)
  • :x: - NONE OF THE ABOVE
0 voters
VOTE on C.) CRITERIA FOR STRATEGIC FUNDS ALLOCATION or USAGE
  • :white_check_mark: YES - Grape Membership Opportunities contributing to GRAPE
  • :white_check_mark: YES - Testing New Time-Sensitive Solutions for GRAPE
  • :white_check_mark: YES - Targeted Rewards to New Initiatives to grow GRAPE
  • :white_check_mark: YES - BUT, Change, Remove or Add Criteria (Comments)
  • :x: - NONE OF THE ABOVE
0 voters
6 Likes
2

I really like this initiative. One small suggestion if I may:

It makes sense to have Treasury Council oversight for large amounts. But for small amounts (like under 25,000 GRAPE), I think GRAPE DAO Board Review & Approval might be enough. The amount could be any number, just thinking to help facilitate the speed of our action is worthwhile if it is a relatively small amount being approved. And also, for a large amount we would have the oversight. A win-win on both fronts.

6 Likes
3

Agree with Pavelsan, the treasury should be responsible for assessing/oversighting large SFBs where the DAO board should be responsible for the small amounts.

3 Likes
4

I’d argue that the Treasury Council should always have oversight and be aware whenever funds are being allocated towards something unexpected. So I see no downside in having the Treasury Council AND the DAO Board both reviewing & approving it (no matter the amount).

I’d also suggest that we slowly build up to the Fund Budget Maximum so that we’re not forced to allocate all of it at once in one epoche.

4 Likes
5

In general not having a dowside is not a strong argument. The separtion of duties should be practised. Multiple entities acting uppon one subject could lead to slowdowns or contrudictions. I would suggest keeping the DAO Board for the structuring and the internal organization of the DAO instead of reviewing/approving funds.

1 Like
6

Do we have an engaged and constant Treasury Council?
I wouldn’t mind having both, but the the consistency and execution is something I am wary on.

1 Like
7

Agree here, the idea behind creating this fund was to be able to spend a small portion at expedited pace if need be. Having both voting on this kind of kills the purpose.

1 Like
8

How so? Checks and balances are highly important in a DAO and both the Treasury Council and the DAO Board should be active enough to come to a decision in a timely manner. My reasoning here is that the Treasury Council is (or should be) aware of everything concerning our expenses and the treasury in general. The DAO Board on the other hand ensures that the will of the DAO is heeded. If the DAO Board is under the impression that there is no consensus, the motion gets rejected and the decision is postponed until a consensus is found. The circumstance of being time-sensitive doesn’t mean that something needs to be auto-executed because a couple of people think that it’s a good idea.

1 Like
9

The treasury council should have visibility on how funds are spent across GRAPE initiatives/sub-DAOs and should have a say in allocation of these funds i.e. the treasury council should have a say in 1. if we should have (or can afford to have) a strategic fund 2. the size of the allocation (within acceptable risk threshold). Once the budgets are allocated, I fail to see why the treasury council should have a vote on how these are spent when we have the DAO board and individual sub-DAOs. I understand the need for checks and balances but we’re discounting the need for delegation here.

The premise we set for the Strategic fund was that it will only be for expenses below a certain amount of GRAPE. If we’re following the entire chain then this is not “petty cash” per se.

10

I see what you mean. For me, having the Treasury Council overviewing things is like having an accountant or controller being aware of spending so that they, if necessary, can warn or veto against certain expenses. 500k $GRAPE is no small amount. One could argue that the Board can always call on the Treasury Council for expertise but being directly responsible has more weight than just being asked an opinion and therefore usually yields better results if you will :sweat_smile:

3 Likes
11

I think what @Pavelsan suggested works best here. If the expense is greater than X% of the total allocation it can go to the treasury council.

2 Likes
12

We do have one @DyNite ! The reason the treasury has kept a low profile all this time is becuse it is a very sensitive matter and a very important aspect of the DAO. In the early calls the DAO requested taht we chjased high yields which the treasury members found a reckless aproach and decided to keep the friktion high the moves slow and the risk low. Atm we are trying to figure the optimal solution were on chain execution can take place via REALMS. We are also creating a risk profile for potential automated vault management. Being active does not mean agreeing uppon descision making @CryptoPawz. I understand that you want to have everything in one place expenses and income and I agree on this we should start doing it in fact it has already started. I would love this to be discussed more.

1 Like
13

Shared my vote, though i feel 400k or smaller per epoch is adequate as this is a time sensitive and experimental space we dont want jeopardize the capital. Risk adjusted returns are key

3 Likes
14

Personal Message on Alignment: We should avoid associating discussions/critique about group responsibilities as a reflection on a single individual executing a role within “any group”. In every suggestion related to improving the DAO, every recommendation should consider how it will operate WITHOUT any single one of us discussing here, as members, even if we helped establish, build, structure, or, occupy the role today. Need to remove our self from the discussion, and include ourselves in execution, not the other way around.

To CryptoPawzs’ point, Checks & Balances are necessary for a DAO, where necessary & applicable.

When there are actions taken on behalf of the community, without a vote, it should require a simple, yet robust, dual-organizational implementation outlined in the proposal to ensure the appropriate decision & diligence of EVERY request, irrespective of amounts. Any emissions that leave the Treasury should be of interest to the Treasury & DAO Board alike.
The DAO Board AND the Treasury should be reviewing and approving the emissions decisions. If this were to be about emitting NFTs, I expect the NFT Council would need to review before an NFT left the treasury, as well.

To Dynites’ Point - Reading the Question regarding the Treasury Council and the response (see below)

Generally, ANY group tasked with maintaining a Function needs to consider whether their role is capable of handling the tasks that align with that responsibility and should be properly staffed/supported.

We need to ensure the Treasury Council is better supported as the DAO Board. There is a reason the DAO Board & The Treasury / NFT Councils are separate - and - must collaborate to execute functional responsibilities.

The purpose of suggesting 2 groups is organizational and operational => “Strategic” (DAO Board) + “Fund” (Treasury / NFT Council)

3 Likes
15

I disagree with your intro but yeah ok. Let’s go in the importance of things:
we have 1 investment portfolio = TREASURY COUNCIL
and then we have an expenses vault which is ANOTHER wallet where the emissions are payed.
Now for obvious reasons such tx tracking having both in the same wallet is NOT a good idea.
I dont understand why you mention the NFT council here?
If you want to have the name treasury council and use it for the expenses wallet go on and do so. Having me responsible for the things you wrote above in a 0 emissions role sounds crazy I think same would go for Whales the other member of the TS who afaik is abaf atm.
I suggest you do what you want with the emissions and organize the things you want and let the NFT TC do the investments as they have. cheers

16

It would be cool to make this a Squad with the DAO board members as signatories. Once we vote for a new DAO board, i can set this up

1 Like
17

Proposal & vote have resulted in the following Actions:

Realms Vote:

Realms

GRAPE DAO Board Squad:

https://app.squads.so/squad/9AvMYgUztHkta9wr7F9gfj4zbtQAEMuEh5wtUH3fFrsZ/proposals

1 Like