This proposal aims to set conditions on resubmitting grant requests based on prior rejections or revocations.
Abstract
In order to re-submit a previously rejected grant request there should be additional efforts to leverage that first negative voting outcome. Moreso, grantees with revocations on their record shouldn’t be able to request grants if that revocation was due to lack of compliance or substandard grant performance.
Motivation
This initiative has the purpose to contribute to a more transparent and community-driven Grants Program as well as a more balanced and reliable voting system. Acknowledging negative voting outcomes as strong community expressions and revocations as severe precedents with consequences are two steps forward in order to avoid voter-fatigue and develop further accountability on a delicate matter such as funds allocations.
Specification
To implement the following requisites upon grants requests:
1. Previously rejected request: In order to re-submit a grant request that has been previously rejected the new proposal must include a minimum 30% reduced budget compared to the original and/or a redefined scope based on community feedback. If it’s rejected again the grantee won’t be able to request a grant for 6 months.
If the original proposal ended up with a majority voting in favor but failed to reach the VP threshold the user will be able to resubmit the proposal unmodified up to one additional time. If it fails again the user won’t be able to request a grant within a 6 month period.
If the grant proposal successfully passes the voting stage, the Revocations Committee will instruct the DAO Committee not to execute or establish the vesting contract associated with the grant.
In the exceptional circumstance that a grant has already passed and the vesting contract is active, immediate action will be taken not to execute the vesting contract.
If either the original proposal or the modified proposal are presented by any other user the 6 month restriction will apply to that user as well.
2. Revoked: If a user has had a revoked grant due to lack of compliance or substandard grant performance it’ll be unable to request grants for a 6 month period.
The Revocations Committee must include either “Able to request grants” or “Not able to request grants” within its revocation statement pointing out the reason for revocation. In case the revocation was due to applying to the wrong category or any other procedural matter the restriction won’t apply but the clarification has to be done.
Implementation
Upon approval the GSS will incorporate and adapt their Manual of Operations to meet this new criteria and the Revocations Committee will make the necessary changes to their process as well. The Governance Squad will ensure an archive system for proposals instead of deletion in order to keep a visible track of re-submissions.
Conclusion
As our DAO continues to discuss core issues such as grant requests and VP distribution we believe this proposal is a step in the right direction. Honoring votes and increasing transparency and accountability are the main drivers of this initiative that is now up for the community to decide on.
Just to clarify: If a requester violates the rule without detection and the grant is approved and/or the vesting contract is active, this gives the GSS and the Revocations Committee the tools for quickly interrupting the vesting contract and revoking the grant.
Voted NO. I believe the current VP environment isn’t sufficiently mature for these requirements. The strictness regarding percentage reductions might not be the best approach. Also there’s a need for mechanisms to edit proposals.
Considering votes from whales that have more than 1 million VP, I believe it is a dangerous proposal that can discourage potential grantees from participating and open the path for backdoor deals.
Where is the 30% number coming from? I think that is a huge reduction in budget for a resubmission.
It’s close to an average of the approved resubmissions from the last three months, but being a significant reduction is the main reason. There must be an effort from the requester.
What is stopping a revoked user from using a different wallet to submit the same idea again? How are we defining a “user”?
This could be explained as if we were talking about a “ban” from the Governance platform for submitting grants for 6 months, and alt accounts being banned because of that too. Consequently, if the same proposal is resubmitted using a different wallet, that alternative wallet will also be subject to the same restriction or “ban”.
If either the original proposal or the modified proposal are presented by any other user the 6 month restriction will apply to that user as well.
Regarding the percentage reduction, a blanket ‘average’ across all grants doesn’t feel like the best approach. Also, could you see this being abused? This reduction in budget should be on a proposal by proposal basis.
example - someone purposefully submits a grant 30% higher knowing it will get rejected. it gets rejected, they resubmit for 30% less and the community thinks it was a great job in reducing the budget and approves the concept…the 30% reduction could also change the vp requirement cliff to pass making it easier for the idea to get approved.
Regarding the alt account…
If either the original proposal or the modified proposal are presented by any other user the 6 month restriction will apply to that user as well.
This statement reads that once an idea is rejected, it cannot be re-submitted by anyone else for 6 months? This also doesn’t feel like the best approach.
example - someone submits something and its cool but too costly; it gets rejected. that original user leaves the platform and doesn’t come back for whatever reaons. then, what if someone else says i can do this for % lower budget, and they want to submit? Are we going to not allow the idea to move forward because it was originally rejected by someone else?
That’s already what people do today…
They ask for very stupid amount of money, get rejected, then ask for less but still stupid amount of money and people say good job…
That’s why we should try to go the Bid&Tendering way as much as possible.
I vote to move this forward because I agree that it is unethical and corrupt to re-submit multiple proposals back to back in order to get them approved, and there should be a limit in the number of grant proposals one can request per quarter/year. But I do not agree that a 30% reduction in budget should be a requirement for resubmission.
While I agree that parts of this proposal could or would be helpful to the DAO in preventing funds and the grants program from being taken advantage of, I do have some concerns.
“If the original proposal ended up with a majority voting in favor”
Is it possible to provide more clarity on what this means? Do abstains count towards putting grants in a “minority”? What if the “Yes” to “No” percentage is 96% but there’s Abstains that push the “Yes” percentage to below 50%?
Currently some people on teams vote “Abstain” for grant proposals they are a part of, which seems like it may hurt them for doing so. This seems like a potential issue when people are being transparent.
Having a 30% reduction automatically attached to this feels like a blanket solution that may end up hurting potential proposals more than helping them. If the main or only concern is the DAO spending itself, then are we willing to sacrifice the grant process to do so? It seems so with this additional stipulation.
“If either the original proposal or the modified proposal are presented by any other user the 6 month restriction will apply to that user as well.”
If I am understanding correctly, this could be good to protect the original proposal’s idea from being taken by someone else… at the same time, it limits the platform from being able to possibly use good ideas that maybe weren’t vocalized or marketed properly enough to pass with a majority. (or maybe the community felt the ideas were good but the team attempting to make the proposal could not execute… in which case someone could get wind of another’s proposal and pre-empt it with a proposal of their own that fails and prevents other proposals from happening? If so, that seems like a potential issue where someone could sabotage a hard thought out grant from somebody else or another team)
I’ll try to respond the questions, but what HP said represents my reasoning very well.
Is it possible to provide more clarity on what this means? Do abstains count towards putting grants in a “minority”? What if the “Yes” to “No” percentage is 96% but there’s Abstains that push the “Yes” percentage to below 50%?
YES +50%. Abstain votes pushing votes below 50% is a possibility. Abstaining isn’t a definitive NO, but it certainly isn’t a YES either. People that don’t want to harm themselves or jeopardize their projects can simply refrain from voting, and that’s as transparent as voting Abstain.
Having a 30% reduction automatically attached to this feels like a blanket solution that may end up hurting potential proposals more than helping them. If the main or only concern is the DAO spending itself, then are we willing to sacrifice the grant process to do so? It seems so with this additional stipulation.
Resubmitting can’t be costless, if 30% is too much let’s find a way to define a new % that could work both ways. This is definitely not a matter of costs for the DAO, it’s about unethical behavior and abusing the existing system. Not sacrificing the grant process, but increasing barriers to entry for obtaining funds from the DAO.
If I am understanding correctly, this could be good to protect the original proposal’s idea from being taken by someone else… at the same time, it limits the platform from being able to possibly use good ideas that maybe weren’t vocalized or marketed properly enough to pass with a majority. (or maybe the community felt the ideas were good but the team attempting to make the proposal could not execute… in which case someone could get wind of another’s proposal and pre-empt it with a proposal of their own that fails and prevents other proposals from happening? If so, that seems like a potential issue where someone could sabotage a hard thought out grant from somebody else or another team).
Sabotage already exists, we’ve witnessed it lot of times and this doesn’t change it for better or for worse. As HP said, B&T is the best way for pushing “good” ideas and having a more transparent competition.
What is it that makes B&T the best way for pushing “good” ideas? Who decides what “good” ideas are? What examples do we have so far as solid proof that B&T works well for the platform and community? Great proposals can take dozens to hundreds of hours to ideate and prepare for submission. Governments around the world also use bidding processes to bid out projects and vendors… from what I have seen quality and value does not typically follow. In some cases the lowest bid wins which seems like a win on paper, maybe financially for a budget but it costs more in the long run due to quality issues. In other cases, insider corruption and favoritism also leads to additional issues where the best product and value is not achieved.
