by 0xf0480e7b09edb7229d4f7b3b25ef77429c5754cf (Palewin)
Today the Decentraland DAO Grant Program allows any member of the community to request funding to help reimburse their efforts.
Nevertheless, there have been debates in different proposals and raised by the community to our team about whether or not the grants program should fund projects that have already been developed before the grant has been requested.
We’d like to ask the community for its sentiments regarding if the Grant Program should have a limit to requesting funds for projects previously developed.
Do not allow grant requests to refund projects previously made
Allow grant requests to refund projects previously made
Limit the amount of refunds inside a broader grant request
I do not feel like grants should be requested for previously completed projects. In my opinion, grants should be used for teams with a financial blocker preventing them from creating in DCL. If a project has already been completed, then they did not have a financial blocker. If the team needs funding to continue building, then they should create a grant request for the future project as opposed to asking to be reimbursed for completed work.
i really like the idea of this poll, thanks for initiating @palewin!
while I agree with @Mimsy for the most part, i’m voting for a limited amount of refunds as i can imagine there are some cases where this makes sense. for example, if some work was done out of pocket to develop an MVP or proof of concept which will be a foundational part of the larger project which is being proposed, I think that’s fair that the work already done is covered in some amount.
i’m not sure what the rule for that should be - not more than 2000 USD? not more than 10% of the requested grant funds? still, i think a strong limit is better than an absolute no.
There’s a benefit to funding projects that are already underway/completed, and it’s that we can determine the viability of said projects by being beta testers before deciding whether to approve the grant as opposed to just granting new projects, only to have some fail midway due to lack of resources/knowledge/commitment.
Another element that should be added is that the DAO should be given a stake in said projects.
Effectively, it’s either a full/partial buyout of an entity
If you put it in terms of risk minimization, funding a project that has already been developed and can demonstrate value/results is way less risky than financing a project’s promise. Some well-known DAOs (Like Optimism) have Retroactive Public Goods Funding, they basically finance projects already under development built as public goods and their community/project uses. In 2021 they granted $1M, this round they’re granting $10M See: Optimism Gateway
I don’t see why we should limit existing projects to get funds of the DAO if they added value to the Decentraland Ecosystem. Voting: Allow grant requests to refund projects previously made
I do like the idea of a separate category with its own requirements and limits. Everyone here has made some really good points, and I can see how it would be beneficial to refund projects that are high quality. I just don’t want to see opportunities taken away from new teams that could come in and build but need that assistance in order to pay teams that have already shown they didn’t need the help to build the project.
I think @ginoct brings up a really important point… that there is value in funding a project that has delivered already, rather than taking a risk on the potential of an unexecuted project.
I think we need to leave the door open to have the choice to refund projects when applicable. This would not apply to every team under the sun, but rather those projects who bring so much value that their contribution changes the course of the Decentraland experience.
In theory, refunding the cost of building high-quality experiences would allow those projects the flexibility to go on to build the the-next-big-project here in Decentraland (in theory)
I agree that DAO funds should be reserved for projects that have financial blockers… but we have been giving grants to companies that have plenty of money and even profit from their proposal projects without giving back to the DAO. Should there be a criteria for determining financial need? If a project has been ongoing and adds value to DCL then it will make it easier to vote for funding it’s growth or scale. We recently agreed to retroactively fund some of TRU’s costs, since they have brought immense value to DCL but I think we should really limit this to those few outliers instead of opening the door to paying for previous expenses.
)