But thats the problem have here, because the ToCs state that
- It’s ok if you provide financial aid to a project, they accomplish the critical milestones And after 1yr lock, you get some OP from that project.
Is specifically not allowed for other projects. This was made clear to me and it’s just concerning to me that statement be made about
“We can abide by this I think”
And that there are currently agreements as stated by the following, with no consequence or previous disclosure.
Further
There is no loan agreement, it was something that would be sorted out when we get the grant.
VS
The agreements that are in place are salary agreements for several of the people (not all) in several of the projects, they get regular monthly salaries from the Giveth DAO or General Magic. Then, after the 1 year lock up, portions of the OP would be split up between people in the project and the orgs that pay their salaries so that the have the economic security they need to pay rent and be available to do the work.
This is an agreement for an upfront payment in exchange for OP later on, which is a loan. You just stated '‘the agreements that are in place’ and that ‘there are no agreements’. Want to make this clear I WANT this to be possible and for parties to have tools to be able to hedge volatility risk in holding these tokens for grants. My problem only comes in that it HASNT been allowed so far, and has been done, and only now coming to light after I had specifically raised for it to be noted so OTHER projects would have the same and equitable access to the same tools.
For clarity then and over transparency are you willing to disclose who the teams are that have such agreements or are looking for such agreements/loans from you? Especially
If there are already agreements as stated by
‘The agreements that are in place are salary agreements for several of the people’
Are you willing to provide these agreements to be looked at for transparency?
Further my other concern was why these disclosures and loans/fees were not disclosed at all beforehand in the allocationn amounts, as it surely would be relevant to deciding eligibility.
This isnt an attack just to be clear, but am just trying to ensure that everyone has to follow the same guidelines and that the tools that everyone has access to and equitable without external advantage, unless all are afforded the same access to the tools.