Since I’m both on the Grants Council and a delegate voting on missions, I started to see a few proposals and authors overlapping missions and grants. I’m listing the proposal, authors or team members overlaps I found here on this post.
I am not aware of any rule where they should not apply to both, this list it’s just a cross-reference between what’s happening on Charmverse with grants and what’s happening on missions here in the forum.
If you come across an overlap that is not here please let me know and I’ll add it. I provide this information here for the community and teams to do whatever they see fit.
If any of my “comments” on the table it’s wrong please let me know.
2 mission proposals and 1 grant proposal, not the same but using the same product.
Just to provide some context here as to why this may be happening and a case study for Scry atleast.
We created the grant at the start for the protocol to get funding. We then became aware of the Missions and the ability to create a proposal for these for higher limits and scope in the grants, so we created a Mission as it seemed a much better fit for the scope and targets we had. But given that the approvals and the quorum thresholds still are pretty iffy as to wether or not would meet them, with the advice that was given to me to just hedge the bet and keep both open and retract the grant proposal if needed on mission proposal execution and success. This may and probably would be the case for many of these overlaps, where projects are not sure theyd be able to meet quorum and approvals and simply using the grants as a hedge to voter apathy/engagement problems rather than trying to double dip.
This isnt really about my proposal specifically but the general context as to why these may be happening. Am not saying theres no projects attempting to double dip, even though technically is alllowed, but that the motives may actually just be around them both happening simulateously with neither able to guarantee success, while also not prohibiting success for other, so for any reasonable actor, the default act would be to apply for both, which may actually create double dipping and capital inefficiency as an unintended consequence rather than a motive.
Generally the grants council seems to actually be the most active for feedback and voting anyway, so seems the seperation between these 2 is mostly arbitrary, when could simply have increased the councils scope and not have to deal with delegate issues, and if needed simply have delegates vote on a blanket, yes or no to approve mission batches rather than individual, which also would allow for missions to be executed while droppping grants, or the other way around, since the same people would be handling the set.
ah, understood. i saw the sum total but there’s no bug bounty in that last proposal, unless you’re flagging some dev/audit costs as a bug bounty. not sure why you’d do so but i see the desire to bucket neatly.
I’m definitely sympathetic to this initiative, having flagged the concentration in mission participants earlier today Season 4 Feedback Thread - #7 by jackanorak. I agree that, all else equal, you’d certainly want to see greater breadth in recipients. Part of this may be due to a need to publicize what we’re doing more. There’s been some nice discussion on this topic today in the discord – make sure to have a look.
Meanwhile, I do think it’s important to recognize what the point of all this is, which is to distribute OP to where it has the most impact. For those concerned that Velodrome’s accumulated ask might be disproportionate, you’re right. It’s because Velodrome’s impact is disproportionate.
Velodrome secures over a quarter of Optimism’s TVL and has onboarded more protocols (50+ out of the 131 listed on DefiLlama) than, I’d argue, the Foundation itself. We have 4x the Twitter following Bankless Dao has and almost 20x what Giveth has. We’ve returned stimulus multipliers of 8x-12x on the OP we have received, and all this without ever having taken on any private investment. I think in any organization you’d make sure to add jet fuel to what’s been succeeding.
Because I want to maintain some distance, I’ll let the team discuss particulars of Velo’s proposals if they wish (and Spearbit/Immunefi for theirs) – but I’d encourage anyone to look closely at the proposals to understand their intentions. These aren’t just handouts to the team.
Thank you for your insights, @Gonna.eth. This gives an opportunity for projects to be more transparent about their work.
Regarding the applications from DAOstar, we’ve taken into consideration the feedback received from the forum and have decided to discontinue pursuing the “DAO Regulatory Interface and Tax Standards” work as a mission proposal under Intent 4. We’ll keep working on the regulatory interface/tax standard and consider resubmitting it for the builder grants in the next cycle. Hence, at present, there is only one mission proposal from our side.
Additionally, I’d like to take this opportunity to share that DAOstar has submitted an application for the current builder grants for an Attestation List Schema for DAOs. An important aspect to note here is the unique structure of DAOstar. We operate via multiple working groups that function parallelly, with diverse members in each group. As such, there is no overlap between the applications. For more information on our initiatives, you can refer here.
I’m talking on my behalf and my personal opinion. Grants Council has nothing to do with what I’m about to say.
Thank you for your insight, Opti. This list was mainly to bring awareness of proposals in Charmverse (failed or not) that might have a mission proposal too (failed or not).
Why? It depends on each delegate’s point of view and what to do with this.
I don’t want to start a debate here on what’s good or bad since this was neutral information only. I usually restrain myself from giving a point of view if I don’t follow the comment with “why” and a fix if it is a negative comment. Thank you again for taking the time to add Pairwise.
Hello all! I want to address some concerns and comments since my mission proposal is linked here and I find some of the comments here to be misleading or perhaps misinformed.
I can see how proposals containing the words “Giveth” and “TEC” might make it appear that they are all the same, but that I think is too steep of a generalization.
@Griff made a great post here to provide some more transparency on the issue and a better understanding of the the “Giveth Galaxy” and the relationships between different organizations.
To help summarize here are two key points I think worth mentioning:
Sharing a Mission for Creating Impact: The “Giveth Galaxy” is a collection of projects, friends, founders, products and DAOs united by a shared mission to leverage web3 technology for positive change. These organizations collaborate and support each other, forming a network of interconnected initiatives.
Autonomy and Independence: Each organization maintains its own leadership, teams, products and mission. Organizations part of the galaxy such as the TEC, TEA, DappNode, Giveth, General Magic, BrightID, Panvala (RIP ), ShapeShift, 1hive, Blossom Labs are all orgs I would consider part of our shining Galaxy but are very clearly not the same organizations. We all support each other in succeeding because of our shared mission and values.
I also feel the need to address this comment directly:
Even if we consider your assumptions to be true, I don’t see how your concerns are valid as to why this is harmful to the grants and mission processes.
Each mission proposes to add value the the OP ecosystem from various different perspectives. Nobody is coming to the plate with malicious intentions, and all the organizations you mention have considerable skin in the game and reputation at stake.
The Giveth Galaxy has a well reputed track record (SINCE 2016) of building the web3 for good ecosystem (before the term web3 even existed). Why wouldn’t you want this type of profile to be the one supporting the OP vision and participating in its grants programs?
Thanks for posting these observations, I believe that thoses teams should respond for transparency.
About this, Cannon project posted on CharmeVerse is unrelated to the other submissions. About the two last ones, I believe that since is a critical feature for the security of Optimism itself, having different teams under a competitive enviroment is healthy, Optimism team just needs to ensures that the proposal has sense for OP Labs.
Thank you for compiling this list. We would like to provide some context regarding the two ETH Daily proposals. For the Charmverse (growth) proposal, our objective is to onboard users to Optimism through an incentivized initiative (e.g. earn OP rewards for an onchain action). Whereas, our mission proposal sought to increase OP brand awareness by delivering timely news updates about the Optimism ecosystem to an existing listener base. The mission proposal will not be moving forward as it was submitted after the submission deadline. Hope this helps clarify, we’re open to any feedback.
I think follow-up comments on this post have taken a turn from the original post but wanted to clarify that the same proposal cannot be submitted under multiple Intents (meaning you cannot submit the same proposal as a Mission and an application to the Grants Council in the same cycle, as the Council processes applications under Intent #2.) An Alliance may, however, apply to the Grants Council in the same cycle with a separate proposal that does not overlap with their Mission proposal.