Now that we’re in the second half of Season 5, I have crafted some feedback to consider during the upcoming reflection period and the next season.
Procedures
- On Protocol upgrades:
- In line with the suggestions made by Polynya here, in the future, any protocol upgrade proposals should be voted on at a more measured pace, for instance, a maximum of one per voting cycle. Unless they are deemed critical upgrades or subjected to a one-package release, users should not be subjected to multiple changes to their systems, regardless of the nature of those changes. It can be argued that from the perspective of a developer or operator, implementing multiple changes simultaneously is more convenient. However, from a security and monitoring standpoint, addressing changes one at a time is more prudent. Nonetheless, it’s worth noting that our pace of implementation remains significantly faster than Ethereum already.
- On Mission Requests and grants:
-
Now that we all have passed the first crafting mission requests experience, there’s significant room for improvement in the scope, quality, and breadth of future proposed mission requests, moving beyond those tailored to very specific tasks. The Grants Council has performed excellently during cycle 19, ensuring the approval of suitable proposals, and we’re doing our best for cycle 20 and so on. As delegates, our focus now shifts towards devising more impactful mission requests, as well as more professional description structures.
-
I’ve received feedback indicating confusion regarding the continuation of the Builder and Growth & Experiments as mission requests. Some individuals were under the impression that these programs had concluded. Specifically, the Builder and Growth & Experiments grants programs should be categorized/communicated better, either under the existing mission requests program or another designed in the future. Therefore, I recommend clarifying the distinction between “tailored/tematic” mission requests and these are more like “freestyle” programs.
-
Considering that badgeholders/citizens become involved towards the end of the process, where they assess the impact of the missions conducted, it seems prudent to encourage their participation or discussion during the preparation of mission requests. However, I am unsure of the best method to facilitate this, beyond acknowledging them as recognized community members.
-
The term ‘baseline grant amount’ was not always well understood among MR proposers and applicants. It is clearer to discuss in terms of ‘maximum budget available’ and ‘maximum team applicants’ only.
Strategy
-
Competence among Layer 2’s chains is getting bigger, my feeling is that the pace of the current Grants conducted by the Governance is too slow for protocols to move properly, especially when it comes to user incentives, such as in DeFi. Thorough reviews are necessary, but opportunities for applications like these only arise a few times during the year (currently 4 periods, extrapolating Season 5 timeline into Season 6).This is not good. Surely, more continuous application periods would be beneficial. I hope to expand more on this case in the coming weeks.
-
Aligned marketing services are crucial here, in many cases we need to get the most competent teams for mission requests. Retro Funding alone does not appear to be a sufficient incentive to undertake such dedicated activities. One alternative approach to alignment is to grant greater ownership to proposers and encourage them—through attestations, rewards, points, whatever—to disseminate information themselves.
I hope the Collective Feedback Commission takes these thoughts into consideration. I’m open to discussing them further below. I will add any additional points to the thread later on.