Some thoughts I wrote up the other week. Likely repeats here but want to get these out to the collective.
-
Additional clarity on applications. Disclosing VC funding, disclosing token status, and discussing crosses between application overlap (if applicable, individual/project cross over and multiple facets of a single entity) have all come up during this round and are things to consider. When viewing an app with cross over there should be a “This individual is associated with these other applications requesting funding in this round.”
-
Longer review process. Reviews took out a lot of spam, but that process had to be somewhat rushed based on volume. More time, more people, and clear guidelines on what can disqualify would help. Would make sense to potentially have a pre-review team comb through and bin applications as ‘spam’, ‘clear violation’, and ‘further review’ before passing to a secondary team that can dig further in to issues. These are different skill level and pre sorting could happen with a larger community pool of individuals while dedicated digging could be closer to the current team. Some chance an AI model could also take a pass and help with first binning.
-
Clarity and guidelines on the appeal process. There was at least one project that was voted out and then had a successful appeal based on flat denial of claims with no evidence. Appeals should have a written post to clarify to voters. There should be another vote on all appeals that is as public as the vote to remove. The ability to push applicants through without accountability is a weak point that could easily be exploited.
-
COI on lists. If lists happen again (and some lists were genuinely interesting and valuable so I think there is a reason they should) conflict of interest statements should be big and bold on apps with relevant line items in lists denoted clearly. If you make a list with COI the line item should be glaringly obvious.