I don’t have any deals written, and am surprised that this breaks any policies as this is very aligned with at least the idea behind RetroPGF:
The results oracle can send rewards to any address. Here are a few possible ideas for what kinds of addresses it can send rewards to:
- A single individual or organization that was primarily responsible for making the project happen
- A smart contract representing a fixed allocation table splitting funds between multiple individuals and/or organizations who had contributed time and/or funding to the project
- A project token, whose supply is distributed among one or more individuals and/or organizations who contributed time and/or money to the project, but which can be traded
The idea from that blog post was that teams could find creative ways of funding their project.
As I said in the video, I don’t have any actual deals in place with any teams, but I am the main donor for many of these teams, and I verbally committed to making sure their salaries will get paid so they can complete these projects, during the lock up, and there would likely will be a deal with me to get the OP as that would be logical. But for all of those teams, I was listed on the grant as a member of the team and that is fully disclosed.
I just now found this:
Which sounds like that is also forbidden.
I mean this is really a tough one to navigate. We can abide by this I think, if we can clarify this:
It also includes entering into any arrangement that transfers to another person or entity, in whole or in part, any of the economic consequences of owning the OP tokens.
There are some projects that are an Alliance between multiple groups, and there was an expectation that one group would get a specific # of OP for their part and the other group would get a specific # of OP for their part… is that ok?