by 0x0d2d5a968127d3fea9dc5032c78724620980a62d (dclchess)
Should grant requests require an initial poll that is followed up with the final request if the poll passes? Adding an additional stage to the relatively short 14 day process would allow for us to determine if the grant request is a good idea by having more time to ask important questions.
Hello,
Thank you for taking the time to submit this. The current process for submitting a poll is a 3-step process yet asking for grant funds is only 1-step 
I am not sure a 3-step process is valid for anything including hiring. People forget, get busy, think they only need to vote once, etc. However, I am in support of the 2-step process all around. Whether it is for Foundation requests or for grant money. Shorten the process around improvement polls and lengthen the process over grants requests. Yes, I am totally for this.
I have seen multiple grant requests deleted recently when it appears that the community won’t support their idea. They may not want that “rejected” in their profile. Let someone gather support/concerns for 5 days and if it doesn’t pass so what, no “negative badge”.
If this idea is combined with my other poll, the new grant request system would actually be a 3 or 4 step process:
This is a 4 step process but the 2nd poll may not be necessary if the community feels it shouldn’t be a requirement after the grantee successfully completes the trial with good results, making grant requests a 3 step process: poll, trial, full grant request.
This reform of the grant program would increase the results and ROI of grants by making grantees work harder to prove themselves to the best of their ability in the 1 month trial. That extra effort in the trial would set a high standard for what the community should expect from the full 2-6 month grant. It would also create more transparency around voting and hold voters responsible.
If both of my “2 stage” and “1 month trial” polls pass, then I will submit another poll to determine if the reformed grant request process should be 3 or 4 steps total… by either keeping or removing the 2nd poll required after the trial is complete (step 3 as mentioned above).
If the “2 stage” poll fails and the “1 month trial” poll passes, the overall process would be 2 steps: trial and then full grant request.
If the “2 stage” poll passes and the “1 month trial” poll fails, the overall process would be 2 steps: poll and then full grant request.
Combined with the other poll I submitted today to reduce the quarterly budget by 30%, I believe all 3 polls together will effectively solve the problems we are currently having with the grant request system… and be a more reasonable alternative to shutting down all DAO funded content creation with a grant freeze.
I realize that all 3 might not pass, but if any 1 of them does then we will have taken sensible and fair steps towards reforming the grant process. If anyone has constructive criticism of my polls, then please share your ideas in a comment so the community can have a comprehensive discussion about what exactly should be done to reform DAO funding.
I would require a second poll when the agreement is bellow 75%, for others a second poll will be unnecessary.
Also increasing poll time can be a good option.
I’m not 100% sure about this, but I’m voting yes to continue the conversation and process to take it to the next stage.
Should grant requests have to go through a 2 stage process similar to polls?
This proposal is now in status: FINISHED.
Voting Results:
Should grant requests have to go through a 2 stage process similar to polls?
This proposal has been REJECTED by a DAO Committee Member (0xfb1afa4dc069ffb47b19dbee196045d508fcd5a2)