We had three days of intense work during which many topics were discussed. I highly recommend reading @maraoz’ forum post, where he provides a general explanation of all the topics covered and the Regenesis Summary with some conclusions we reached.
From my perspective, I want to focus on sharing insights about how we could envision a future approach to fund allocation. The goal is to continue working along this path while ensuring the efficient use of the DAO’s resources.
As most of us know—and as became clear during this meeting—we all agree that the Grants Program and the Bid and Tender Program, as they exist with the open voting system, brings many issues. This, combined with other challenges we’ve already shared (if anyone missed it, you can read this GSS report, where we provide all the results from these three years, including expenditures and effectiveness), shows that we need to make changes.
With that in mind, several thoughts emerged. Some are my own or come from GSS discussions with Yemel (thanks @yemel @Zino and @fifitango!), while many others arose from the Summit participants and topics we debated. That’s why I wanted to share a few of the ideas that came up.
The potential creation of an Operational Arm (Op-Arm) would allow us to be much more effective in the projects we fund. There was a discussion about prioritizing funding, through this new entity, for projects or experiences that bring in new users and retain them, with the aim of sparking a sustainable economy within the platform.
Credit: @esteban
Some ideas that emerged include:
- Stop the current Grants Program / Bids and Tenders Framework as we know it.
- The Operational Arm could have a team responsible for coordinating the various funding programs and the in-house strategic projects.
- We could design different programs based on the types of projects we prioritize for funding.
- Rounds of calls for proposals could be organized, where, depending on the priorities, we could invite creators to submit proposals aligned with the mission. These rounds could be thematic and include more than one topic at once.
- The Op-Arm should have autonomy in creating these funding programs, with input from the community.
- A Projects Review Committee could be created alongside different community actors and specialists, would help refine, select, and vote on (or somehow prioritize) whether projects are feasible and valuable with the coordination of the Op-Arm’s internal team.
- A transparent scoring method could be developed so that funding decisions are open and communicated to the community.
- Monthly reporting should be required for selected projects or vendors, as we currently do with the grant recipients or Bids/Tenders.
- Project outcomes should be clearly measurable.
- We discussed leaving a small portion of the funding program similar to the current Grants Program, or possibly implementing a retroactive funding model like RPG. In this case, funding is granted upon the successful completion of objectives, using a different voting scheme, more similar to the current open voting system, for smaller projects and budgets. This idea sparked some controversy due to the issues the DAO has experienced with the open voting system in grants.
- We also discussed implementing a reputation system, where creators who successfully complete projects could be attested, giving them priority in future applications or contracts.
- It was also discussed having some kind of coordination with the Foundation regarding the types of projects being funded, to avoid unnecessary overlapping.
- Everything we fund should serve to improve and protect the common goods, contributing to driving a sustainable economy and a robust protocol.
In terms of types of projects, we discussed:
- Supporting and assisting communities that already have many users or new communities that can bring in and retain more users.
- Creating high-quality in-world experiences to increase engagement and retention (events, games, mini games and more experiences).
- Revisiting IRL Ambassador Programs, learning from previous experiences to create an improved version with insights from @Canessa and @KimboNFT. This would include events, hackathons, education, meetups, etc.
- Protocol applications and documentation funding. Example: alternative clients, such as Godot, VR, and mobile.
- Setting aside Open, Research & development, Experimental, Innovation funds with short term missions and small budgets could be part of a Program.
I also strongly recommend you read the notes from the discussion rooms we had and the agreements’ summary.
Lastly, I want to highlight the presence of three of the DCL Founders, whose visions are always interesting to hear and understand, as well as several community members (Committees, Core Units, Grantees, Foundation members, Community members), who greatly enriched the discussions. And a special thanks to @ginoct for promoting and making the Summit a reality.
Best regards to everyone,