It is concerning to hear about the undue pressure from certain individuals within the community that GSS has been facing. It’s important to acknowledge the challenging dynamics and the potential influence of such pressures on decision-making.
Given the context, it appears that the sudden change in GSS’s assessment after six months may be a result of external pressures and concerns. It is essential for the Revocation Committee to carefully evaluate both GSS’s report and our defense below to determine the validity and merit of the claims. This is a critical step in ensuring fairness and justice in the decision-making process.
The Revocation Committee (@dax @bay @MetaDoge) should prioritize upholding the integrity of the grant process and making decisions based on valid, transparent, and community-focused criteria, rather than succumbing to external influences. It is crucial to consider the facts and evidence provided by all parties involved to make a well-informed decision that aligns with the best interests of the community and the project in question.
So let’s refine and discuss it one by one.
A. Metrics
A.1 First is the metrics that the GSS reported about the metrics. Upon onboarding a grantee, the Grant Support Squad (GSS) typically suggests utilizing Atlas or DCL metrics to facilitate metric tracking and ensure accountability to the community. When we initially onboarded six months ago, we received an email from GSS (please see screenshot below), and at the bottom of the email, you can observe GSS recommending DCL metrics. We subsequently engaged in several conversations with GSS on various occasions to clarify the specific metrics associated with DCL and how we could utilize them. We reached a mutual agreement with GSS, confirming our intention to employ DCL Metrics for monitoring our progress. If necessary, we can furnish evidence of the receipt of these communications.
In the report of GSS, it states that the total number of people that attended our event is only 866.46 with the following attendees by month, which confused us, because this is not the number that appears in the DCL metrics.
Regrettably, when we inquired with GSS regarding the source or methodology behind these numbers and data points, we did not receive a response. Because in the DCL metrics, it states a totally different number from the report of the GSS, please see table below:
The figures are from DCL metrics, for which we possess concrete data substantiating our claims. We fully understand the importance of transparency, and in the interest of transparency, we encourage community verification of the information we provide. It is unfortunate that we have encountered a similar issue with GSS in the past, and assurances were made that such situations would not recur. It appears, however, that we find ourselves in a repetitive cycle.
Our concern arises from the question of why grantees are advised to use DCL metrics while the data the GSS uses remains unverified and untraceable by anyone else. We advocate for a unified system, as initially agreed upon, to ensure consistency and reliability. This inquiry leads us to question whether DCL Metrics is not deemed credible by the committee.
For the past six months, we have consistently submitted our reports in alignment with the previously agreed-upon metrics system. Therefore, the recent suggestion to adopt an alternative metrics system raises concerns and requires clarification.
A.2 Upon closer examination of the findings provided by GSS, it becomes evident that there is a chart included that appears to lack coherence or logical consistency. (Please see screenshot below)
Exhibit A: Regarding Wonderzone Row #77, GSS data indicates a figure of 24. However, when we compare this to our DCL metrics chart at the bottom, the numbers do not align.
In contrast, when we reference the DCL metrics, which is a project funded by the Dao, we observe that there are 71 individuals involved with Wonderzone Row #77. Furthermore, when we engaged in a discussion with Wonderzone, they acknowledged that the arena typically has a sparse attendance, and the recorded number of 71 visitors is notably higher than what they have experienced recently. (Please see screenshot below)
Exhibit B:
Second for Row #68 it says -4, Row #74 it says -7 and Row #85 it says -2.
It raises a valid concern as to how it could be conceivable for any venue to have a negative value in attendance, because in our reference to DCL Metrics:
Decentral Games was at 30 attendees
Meta GamiMall had 143 attendees and BitCinema had 9.
Here’s our detailed report and screenshots from DCL metrics: DCL Metrics - Google Sheets
A.3 There are many typo mistakes for Unique User - in World data here but GSS has calculated this into our results.
I would like to emphasize that we are unfamiliar with this form, and it is unclear who created it. This is the first time we have encountered this document, and its logic is not readily comprehensible to us.
B. Metrics vs Cost
I would like to reiterate the point made earlier, especially for the benefit of GSS, as illustrated in the image above. For Series 1, Bass Trekkers only hosts 12 events, consisting of 12 pre-events, 12 main events, and 12 post-events, totaling 36 events per series. We find it challenging to discern the purpose and relevance of the statistics presented in the charts below from GSS. It appears there may be some confusion regarding our project on the part of GSS.
Secondly, in the screenshot and link provided below, you will find the information that we have conveyed to GSS on multiple occasions. It’s important to note that the content in this link aligns with the messaging we have consistently shared with GSS, as well as the preferences expressed by the community through their votes.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_vcY2CrtjQP4MSZparUDudgMI8YEk8QE?usp=share_link
We have been in ongoing discussions for nearly six months, and it’s only now that the issue of clarity regarding our proposal is being raised. We have diligently submitted DCL Metrics to GSS on a weekly basis following each event. Therefore, the metrics data that GSS are submitting to the revocation committee is what we have already shared with GSS. If there have been any uncertainties in our communications over the past six months, it would have been helpful for them to be addressed earlier.
Additionally, there’s an interesting point to note. The Dao compensates us for hosting our Twitter spaces. However, when evaluating the data, it seems that Twitter space data is omitted, and the cost is factored in without considering the return on investment. This may give the appearance of being misleading. We have developed a chart based on our Twitter spaces, using the same formula. (Please see screenshot below)
(Some screenshots from GSS’ Report that we would like to answer)
Screenshot 1&2:
Indeed, as we have substantiated our position with accurate and reliable data, it raises an important question. Should we consider revoking grants simply on the basis of subjective judgments about their expense, particularly when the community has already expressed their support for these initiatives through their votes? This situation underscores the significance of upholding the decisions made collectively by the community and relying on verifiable data and metrics when evaluating grant recipients.
Screenshot 3:
The information provided in the document below clearly indicates that the Execution team is associated with a payment of $15,994.15. However, the reference to the MetaTrekkers team with a payment of $59,802.10 seems inaccurate and misleading. We would like to emphasize that only $15,994.15 was allocated and spent for the MetaTrekkers Execution Team, while the rest was paid to third parties who are also part in bringing success to this project.
For example: @HPrivakos, we are paying him for the streaming services but he is not part of the MetaTrekkers execution team.
Screenshot 4:
Here is a link to target audience definition and the different types. We specially explained to you about the followers and gave you a document with the metrics. We also included a link to help you better understand this concept further. Also we have attached a picture for you as well.
Screenshot 5:
Above we already explained why this is inaccurate and we again here have included the actual charge from a credible source with the metrics and pics.This information above is false and not accurate.
In this link, you will find where we derived the 272,000 Target Audience, which is actually from the followers of our partners - DJs, Venues, Guest Artists, etc.: BT2 Partners - SocMed Following - Google Sheets
With that said, we would also like to share with you the social media analytics of BeatTrekkers:
Screenshot 6:
We are glad you wrote this because we are way above this.
C. Revocation due to cost
Lastly, should we consider setting a precedent for grant revocation based on the perception of high costs, while disregarding the decisions made by the community? If the community has voted in favor of a project and the grantee is delivering on their promises, should we employ “excessive cost” as a justification for revocation? This criterion is highly subjective, and in the following discussion, we will demonstrate this subjectivity. Furthermore, we should also address the metrics presented by the Grant Support Squad to the Revocation Committee.
GSS mentioned that the cost per user is $96.95, when it’s ONLY $39.96 (if it includes Twitter Space attendees) and $46.10 (if it’s only DCL Unique Users). As mentioned earlier, the GSS was unable to present accurate data with regards to the metrics, hence the computation of cost per user was incorrect. Below is our computation based on the data we have gathered from DCL Metrics.
In conclusion, we hope that the Revocation Committee will look at the accuracy of the data, and the project’s commitment to deliver its promise. Again, we would like to reiterate that from the very beginning, GSS agreed to use the DCL metrics to measure the analytics of our project. Secondly, the report that the GSS has inaccurate and incorrect data. Lastly, “excessive cost” is not a justification for revocation.