[Looking for sponsor] Automated Grants System

Governance Fund Missions šŸ¹
,
1

Mission Request

Delegate Mission Request Summary: Build an automated grants system that allows builders to gain access to a grant (in the form on a stream) with low friction, and receive payout based on meeting the given criteria.

S6 Intent : 1 Progress Toward Decentralization (DAO Infrastructure)

Proposing Delegate/Citizen:

Total grant amount: 99k OP

Should this Mission be fulfilled by one or multiple applicants: One

How will this Mission Request help accomplish the above Intent?

This Mission quest aims to drive intent #1 - Progress Toward Decentralization - by innovating on organizational decentralization, making improvements in user experience (UX) that will increase the votable supply as well as the number of citizens that feel comfortable voting.

The OP grant system is a wonderful technology, that largely is inaccessible due to its cumbersome nature. I consider myself an advanced web3 user, and I have hard time navigating the grants process. However Iā€™m someone who is incredibly passionate about the superchain, and someone who really wants to make an impact.

Hence, I propose to design this system to lower the friction, and increase the usability of the OP grants system.

The grants system is arguably the most powerful tool that the Superchain has due to the potential of enabling a virtuous cycle, where more developers building = more utility = more usage/revenue which = more developers building.

We can make significant advances in the grants system that can help us accelerate this flywheel.

What is required to execute this Mission Request?

  1. Grant Specification:

The automated grant system should work in two ways:

  • User ā†’ Grant/Proposal and
  • Grant/Proposal ā†’ User

Meaning the user can get a grant for their own idea, or they can sign-on to do an existing one.

For each, the grant object should contain the four simple properties: 1) the product - whatā€™s getting build, 2) the results - how the results should be measured, 3) a description, 4) the people working on the product.

  1. Identity System

An identity system can be designed such that it can compile credentials that demonstrate a userā€™s ability to execute a proposal, as well as the userā€™s history on the superchain.

  1. Frontend Design

Lastly, the UI/UX is perhaps the most important part to driving usage of an automated grant system.

How should governance participants measure impact upon completion of this Mission?

  1. Number of identities created
  2. Number of attestations made as a result of hitting criteria
  3. Number of transactions on OP, for each identity
  • Milestones:
  1. Grant specification complete, parameters set
  2. Grant system implemented
  3. Identity system complete, algorithm to determine score based on credentials complete
  4. Frontend design complete, which integrates the grant system with the identity system
  • Impact and Metrics:
  1. Number of identities created
  2. Number of delegations with identities
  3. Number of grants created
  4. Number of grants completed
  5. Number of attesations made in each grant

Has anyone other than the proposer contributed to this Mission Request? No

North Star Metric for evaluation

This mission quest should be evaluated using the ā€œTotal Amount of Addresses Voting for the First Timeā€. It is likely the best measure of increasing the votable supply under this implementation.

2 Likes
2

Hey there @adebimpe.xyz. Thank you for your suggestion. This looks similar to an existing Mission Request that is live now to apply for. Have you seen this one?

1 Like
3

hey @adebimpe.xyz! remember that your MR proposal must be posted in this forum post.

1 Like
4

Hi @Jrocki - thank you for this comment. The idea has similar goals, however this one is designed to be comprehensive, with a focus on UI and UX.

Would be great to get your feedback.

5

Thank you @Bunnic - I did just post it there, hopefully I did it right?

6

There is definitely an opportunity to simplify the grants process for users, I would agree. Quick disclaimer: Although I am a member of the grants council I am stating my personal opinion here in this post so my views do not represent the views of the grants council as a whole :slight_smile:

What you are going for here is a way to fully automate the grants application and review process via a set of standardized inputs that are verifiable on-chain coupled with an algorithm to determine the score of the application correct?

While I donā€™t think the subjective human element should be entirely taken out of the scoring system (if that is what you are suggesting), I do think that generating an identity score based on on-chain activity / trusted attestations could potentially be useful as a data point for scoring each grant application

I am curious to hear from you on if we have enough reliable on-chain data to generate a meaningful score for grant applicants?

1 Like
7

Thanks @Jrocki .

Certainly agree. Not advocating to take out the human element entirely. I think that is an important part of web3 communities that should always remain no matter how advanced technology becomes.

I will provide a little more detail here in my response :slight_smile::

I am suggesting that if a user or a group of users has a sufficient ā€œonchain/reputation scoreā€, they can get access to funds. We could even set certain parameters that determine how much $ they can receive based on their score (where the higher the score, the more theyā€™re eligible for).

After a user or group was receiving a stream for a grant, there would be a series of criteria to hit, where the reviewers would attest to the milestone. For example if I wanted to build a website, and I asked for 50k OP, the system would see my score, and my history on the superchain and begin streaming the grant. There can be a series of criteria to hit over a given time period, and the stream can be variable to that. Following the website example - 5k would stream out over 2 weeks. In 2 weeks thereā€™s a criteria to hit ā€œdesigned website, or content for the websiteā€ - if the reviewers donā€™t attest that itā€™s been completed, the stream will stop. We can also decrease the reputation score so the user is ā€œless-eligibleā€ for a grant next time, or perhaps not at all (depending on how the scoring algorithm works).

As for the onchain score, I believe we can generate something meaningful for the purpose of grants, which is beginning to emerge here - https://onchainscore.xyz. As a part of the mission quest, I plan on looking at other ways to make the score more accurate, such as bringing github data onchain, and using attestations in the scoring algorithm.

8

For the metrics team to be able to compare multiple approved applicantā€™s success in this mission request we need you to propose only one metric from this table as the Northstar:

  1. Number of addresses voting for the first time
  2. Number of addresses delegating for the first time
  3. Total amount of OP delegated from new addresses using the granteeā€™s protocol
  4. TVL in the granteeā€™s protocol
  5. Number of transactions emitting event logs
  6. Number of active addresses interacting with granteeā€™s contracts
  7. Total amount of gas fees generated from granteeā€™s contracts
  8. Percentage of retained active addresses interacting with granteeā€™s contracts
  9. DAA/MAA ratio
  10. Number of testnet transactions emitting event logs
  11. Number of active developer addresses interacting with granteeā€™s contracts

Personal Opinion that does not reflect the vision of the grants council

People inside the foundation are building the reputation score by doing attestations and farcaster. I believe your idea is good, but we donā€™t have that on-chain recognition yet to implement this mission request.

1 Like
9

Thanks @Gonna.eth.

Iā€™ve added the north star metric to the initial post.

There may be some confusion with the reputation scoring mechanism proposed. The idea is to implement an algorithm that scores an account based on attestations, onchain transactions and perhaps other tokens that are in a users account - where a users account is just their wallet address.

I believe this is a necessary component to a automated grants system.

1 Like