Community Fund DAO Submission Requirement Guidelines


#1

Please share the document of the most updated conditions of the Community Fund.

It is important for NEM community ”how the project is adopted by NEM” and its ”visibility”.

that is old


Nem proposal for new member from Angola-Africa
#2

[email protected]

This mail is inactive.


#3

Can’t anyone answer?


#4

Please share the document of the most updated conditions of the Community Fund.

It is important for NEM community ”how the project is adopted by NEM” and its ”visibility”.


#5

These are the community guidelines that were shared at the start of our Community Fund Proposal, it was sent to me by @jason.lee on 29th November 2017

NEM Community Fund DAO (2).pdf (158.6 KB)

I would assume this is the latest one :slight_smile:


#6

From now on, the Japanese community prohibits acceptance of proposals If you do not mention both YES and NO addresses.

We place importance on fairness.
Please make a suggestion after carefully looking at the number of SuperNodes in Japan.
Improvement of guidelines is required.


#7

The guidelines are being revised right now as we speak with lower limits and more protections built in for the community fund. Also all projects have been asked to hold off the vote until the new guidelines are released.
If you have more suggestions you can post them here.


#8

I have heard about this before.
I want to know why the voting is being done now.


#9

Prover was allowed to finish its voting because the voting started before the process of the guidelines update started. But since Prover still has to be accepted by the team after the vote finished it doesn’t matter. They will have to change their proposal as well if necessary after the new guidelines are released even if they won the community vote.


#10

thankyou for the explanation.
understood.


#11

I don’t think the limits are the problem - I think there needs to be some incentives for the vote itself, we thought maybe a temporary POI boost for the voters would increase incentive to vote?


#12

Maybe I’m late for this, but these are my suggestions

Create 2 types of funds:

  • One where the community can vote, that is for projects up to a smaller size (like 1 million). The council and core teams have the right to veto a project if they feel it is inappropriate.

  • Another one for strategic projects of a larger size (like up to 5 million) where only the council members or core teams can vote to decide. The community can recommend projects (and maybe be rewarded if the project gets the go-ahead), and the community can give feedback (maybe paid if the feedback is incorporated) but not vote on the proposal.

I’m saying that because choosing a project is like a being a Venture capital or Angel Investor, not everybody in the community has the same knowledge about business model, marketing, management, technology etc. You can know a lot about NEM but have no idea about how to run a business or what idea might be successful.

Second, the community are not clear what the fund is meant to do. Some think it is a VC fund designed to make money for NEM or make the value go higher, others think it is a fund to create cool projects to show off all of NEMs capability. In fact it is kind of both, but people think it is one or the other and vote no on proposals that don’t fit their idea of what the fund is for, even if it is a good idea.

  • The poi is 3%. I think is not impossible to get that number. Blockgrain, Location core, Copyrightbank made it.
  • Some members are complaining about the funds has to be in $ and not in XEM because the fluctuation. Anyway The milestones are there and the teams can’t hold the xem so much.

#13

This actually makes a lot of sense for the different sized projects, However the incentive to vote isn’t there, 3% is definitely possible but not when there are several votes happening at the same time all the time - voter apathy becomes very apparent very quickly!

Most people are in it for the money - increasing POI means they can earn more and are therefore more likely to want to get involved in these votes.


#14

One thing. Also now when community vote for yes core team also vote. So core team can reject project in voting (also if accepted by community).


#15

short of sending the users xem, there wouldnt be a way to temporarily increase voters POI if they vote. also, that would likely attract “dont care” voters who just vote anything for the sake of voting.


#16

Yeah I would assume a hard fork would be necessary if it could even be done! Not sure there are many ways to avoid voter apathy, especially if NEM is ramping up its marketing as it should, its going to put a lot of pressure on node owners to get involved in these votes!


#17

well the thing is, the votes are not “on chain”. they are regular transactions like any other, they just have an amount of 0 and an amount over 0 would not invalidate the vote afaik. so there isnt even a way to distinguish votes from any other regular transactions. realistically what we need is voting and polls built into the blockchain instead of having an off-chain solution. There is also the question of, where does the poi boost come from? POI is a zero sum game. the sum of all accounts POI = 1. so if you boost a voters POI, where do you take it from? the only egalitarian way to go about that is take it from everyone, in which case your penalizing everyone who abstains. possibly also introducing attack vectors (create poll, vote -> create poll, vote rinse repeat, -> absorb POI) not sure it would be worth it if im honest. there are many ways companies could provide incentive to voters, the key would be to do it in a way that doesn’t favor one side of the vote over another.

An even better solution would be to restrict the number of votes allowed to run simultaneously during any given period, and keeping the standard nice and high. This would reduce the amount of marketing done by companies running votes due to less votes and higher quality projects shouldn’t need to do extra marketing. Give users a chance to appraise proposals, without being swamped and they will i think. When there were very few votes, many people voted and 3% wasn’t an issue. Then the number of votes being run dramatically increased, and people seem to have gotten frustrated, and now don’t seem to care as much. imo less votes and higher quality projects/proposals would solve the issue. (not saying anything about any project in particular wrt to quality)


#18

That’s correct, that’s why I suggested to add another type of fund for strategic projects where only council and core team can approve.


#19

It’s community fund so it should stay community but this is just my opinion :slight_smile:


#20

Yeah I didn’t think about the total of POI = 1 :thinking:

The biggest problem we found is that the only way to get through to people is via telegram, telegram is atrocious as a comms tool, it is noisy and messages get easily lost, we used other vectors to try and reach supernode owners who maybe weren’t engaged with the community but that isn’t really sustainable either.

To be honest this could be as simple as having a dedicated community for supernode owners that is actually engaged with and not noisy, and by having only a NEM representative add a single point of contact for the voting team to answer questions on the projects if any arise, the problem is that everyone is busy.
These projects will benefit NEM in the long term so I would say everyone has a vested interest in performing the votes - but unless the standards are maintained to a high level and people are forced to follow the rules then voter apathy will be a huge factor!