Does the 20M $RLY to fund this come from the Team’s $RLY token tranche? Trying to figure out if this will help mitigate problems in token allocation (re: 76% of $RLY tokens in hands of Team/Early Investors).
Fully agree with your take here, the Creator Community should be very active and take the lead in choosing projects to fund. Another mechanism besides blacklisting Rally Team/ Employees you can look into is quadratic voting – so in this case, this DAO could prioritize Creator votes by weighing them more heavily (vs. other token holders, i.e. Team).
Gitcoin and others do this and its a very effective mechanism for communities to take control of their economies.
Great work on this proposal to you and the team, Gary.
Regarding the reviewer option and the criteria for candidates, I would suggest at least 1 member of the group provide dedicated review for technical aspects of grant vetting on behalf of the community. This role wouldn’t necessarily have to be a crypto-technologist or even a dedicated engineer, but should have enough background on how the various aspects of the network function along with common technical conventions in the space.
The rest of the list of qualifications for candidates looks great by the way, as someone who has ran grant programs with no DAO experience and minimal financial background and having ran a small grant program, this is an excellent improvement framework for such a group
As some of these grants will go to projects that don’t succeed, or perhaps provide something viable for the community, but not related to their original purpose, there might be some need to catalog all commitments and deliverables from every grant. This is something I have seen work well in academia for research grants, where as a part of receiving a grant, delivery of the data / materials is required before the end of the grant schedule.
The reason I suggest this, is as the network grows, more ideas will come and go, succeed and fail, and sometimes just poorly timed. And it would be a shame to have dedicated some of the community’s funds to projects that nearly missed and were forgotten, or to never retry an execution outside of the initial grant period.
It would be fantastic if there was a way for anyone wanting to build on Rally to not only see existing applications and projects that are in the wild, but also have a report of all past attempts to draw.
As a side note: There may also need to be some consideration for “maintenance grants” for projects that are funded and creators try out, but the original grant no longer justifies the contributors who built it to continue to maintain even though they may still be in use.
Great point @retired-marshal - that’s the way we were thinking about it: stack the reviewer panel with a mix of technical, crypto and business expertise to have the right mix of lenses to review proposals.
Both of these points are right on. We will definitely make sure to keep a running log of evaluated/accepted/rejected proposals and keep them public, while maintenance grants are also a valid use of funds.
All - just sharing a quick update that we’re still in process of identifying and interviewing both the potential lead and the panel of seven reviewers. We’re hoping to complete identification and outreach/interview by the first week of December, at which point we’ll share more and put the panel up for a vote.
To date, we have received a few referrals and volunteers but would welcome any great recommendations. As shared previously, reviewer candidates should have experience in some or all of the following:
- DAO Contribution
- Grant/Investment Evaluation (Crypto or Non-Crypto Tech)
- Product Background
- Finance Background
- Familiarity with RLY Community
To be clear, we aren’t looking for candidates with everything above, but are looking to create a reviewer panel with a mix of these skills. Current Rally Staff, paid Community Ambassadors/Advisors, and Rally.io Council Members are not eligible. Please feel free to DM me on Discord with any potential candidates (@c00v).