Where can we see how much XEM has already been allocated to community funded projects?
http://chain.nem.ninja/#/search/NAFUNDDWQUHMIKPV2JUH2VNCYEAQX3O7QKHECZUV
the amount in was the initial creation of the fund: 306m and 291m left so roughly 15m xem has been distributed since its creation.
1 Like
Is there any way we could incentivize project voting without causing any spam? Could we create a system where we delegate other (more experienced) people to vote on our behalf, for those who aren’t knowledgeable enough but would still like to participate? I think that way more people could be involved in the decision making process without actually being present… and they could change their delegated choice whenever they wanted to. Does that inevitably lead to corruption?
I dont think that would be possible. Importance or balance would have to be given or lent to the delegate, and nem network doesnt support this.
1 Like
NEM has more than 200K followers on twitter, thousands in the different telegram groups, reddit, bitcointalk, blogs, youtube channels, instagram ,facebook and so on.
If somebody wants to incentivate votes has to be the guys behind the community proposals. They have to do marketing, encourage community, create conversation, convice the community why they deserve the vote.
If there is a nem fan out there and doesn’t know about community funds, projects it’s their fault. I think if you are member or blockchain supporter, you have to follow what that blockchain is doing.
That’s a fair point but I’ve seen projects really push for votes and be very open to questions. That one project where you can save-up money using nem, those fellas basically lived on telegram and still nothing.
Maybe we can’t delegate the importance and therefore the vote, but we might be able to delegate some of the due dilligence ? Maybe we could elect proper community representatives that give projects ratings and then people can choose to either vote based on that or still do their own due dilligence. It would at least get the people to vote that don’t want to vote willy nilly but also don’t have the time to read all the proposals.
1 Like
We could simply have a vote to determine trusted representatives, like the US house of representatives. That works really well and everyone is very happy about it!
I don’t know about voting, that may complicate things unnecessarily, but maybe something simpler would be more efficient, like any individual having the possibility of choosing to entrust someone else.
In any case, the community fund request proposals have been updated in the meantime, check them out here:
https://nem.io/community-fund/ 7
We have been heard!!"Tier 1: USD 0 - 40k
Grant proposals will be submitted directly to the Community Fund Committee and approved internally. Grants will require no equity or token allocation, repayment, or community vote.Tier 2: USD 40k - 150k
If a total of at least 1% of the importance of the NEM blockchain votes in favor of the proposal and the vote passes with a 65% majority, then the vote is considered accepted by the community. Otherwise, it fails.Tier 3: USD 150k - 800k
If a total of at least 2% of the importance of the NEM blockchain votes in favor of the proposal and the vote passes with a 65% majority, then the vote is considered accepted by the community. Otherwise, it fails.Tier 4: USD 800k - 5 million
If a total of at least 3% of the importance of the NEM blockchain votes in favor of the proposal and the vote passes with a 65% majority, then the vote is considered accepted by the community."
And I think this is the better solution in the end, of course with future modifications.
It does make sense, my question would be what % of the community is active enough and really votes in these?
From what I’ve seen so far, 2% is easily achievable. Even 3% can be easy to reach with some spamming. I think the most important thing imo is not that people don’t necessarily care enough to vote, but that people don’t know what they’re voting for - which can be in itself just as big of a problem.
That’s the concern, for a company to put tons of effort and thought into it and then get funding or not based on the whims of disinterested community members seems unfair
@RafiGlantz Yes, this is also one of our big concerns. 3% seems like a big target to hit, considering we have no visibility on the # of active members on the forum, much less on the # of those who actually vote…
You’re right up to a point, 3% can be achieved with enough involvement and presence on all mediums (forum, telegram, reddit, twitter, etc.). Incentives also help a lot with marketing to voters, but most importantly, a project with strong fundamentals and solid proof of concept is hard to ignore, and it really shows when people consider the vote. And, come on, a team asking for hundreds of thousands of dollars or even more than that should put in the necessary effort in making sure they reached absolutely every person possible. And trust me, 3% is easily obtainable then.
i agree, 3% is not so difficult to reach for bigger companies with impressive or flashy proposals combined with a bit of spamming; but we haven’t simply made it easier. We lowered the POI but we also in turn upped the barrier to entry by making business plans mandatory, implementing milestone restrictions and shifting committee vote to before public review/vote opposed to after. The POI is lower, but reaching voting stage is much… much harder - and likely to get harder as demand for funding increases.
This is a better methodology imo to allow for smaller projects with a lot of merit but little ‘fire power’ compared to larger companies that may already have many employees. Also, as the demand increases, so too will the committee reviews become more and more stringent, indirectly creating competition between proposals and therefore increasing the standard and valuation accuracy. the goal was never to simply fund everything, we want quality over quantity. 
Getting funding from NCF should be seen as a stamp of approval, much in the same way getting VC funding is. If we want to achieve this, there has to be a high barrier to entry and only be awarded to the best companies after stringent review. We are also investigating expanding the scope of the community fund, however a legal entity is needed in place for this to happen, hence the origins of this thread 
3 Likes
It’s not that difficult to reach, but if I’m looking at the right numbers 3% is only 250 people-ish…How do you reach all of the people here effectively?
We definitely want to reach everyone we can, just want to make sure we’re not so siloed no one hears about us!
Did they actually fund that crappy project that was going to grow Italian Parsley in shipping containers?
Cheers
ummm…Seriously? Why would you need a blockchain for that LOL?
This topic continues in this post:
1 Like