I’ve continued thinking alot about this proposal and have some questions/points to make:
- Firstly, I’d like to propose an alternative to the VC fund proposal. I propose we tweak it and instead create a virtual incubator. The incubator is designed to standardise the process for evaluating proposals ensuring all pass through the same set of gates towards NCF funding while increasing the chances of success for selected projects and increasing the value to NEM. The incubator would fund businesses to start/accelerate their business using NEM. Initially with a small, equity free starter grant (say 20k-50k) depending on how far along they are. They would be enrolled in the virtual incubator, assigned mentors/advisors and specific tasks they need to complete, like defining the problem, opportunity, solution, “Why blockchain”, business model, product/market fit, financial modelling, etc. Once they pass through the necessary gates/milestones, they may unlock some additional incubator-granted funding (say up to 200k) and at some point, the incubator takes an equity stake (we’d utilise the existing legal entities created for the VC fund).
The goal here is to to make business ideas NCF investment ready (note: This would take the business closer to investment ready in the “real” world). These businesses would also get “Incubator Certified” and can then go on and request further money from the NCF fund in a standardised way via public vote (as today). As the business grows beyond the incubator, there would also be a programme to ensure the business has support to succeed. Note, this model covers both an initial allocation (say 5-10 million) and the remaining NCF funds. I genuinely think this model will better achieve what the VC fund is trying to accomplish. I know of several very experienced people I could approach to run or help start/run this incubator and/or explore the idea further. It could be run in a fairly decentralised manner, and we could stay quite true to the DAO.
Should the idea above not proceed and we continue down the VC path, I also propose:
- As mentioned by several people already, this is being rushed and vote should be delayed. 10 days is not enough to review a proposal of this scope. I propose adding at least another 10 days and a requirement of publishing:
- Summary of proposed changes on NEM blog & Medium/Steemit & reinstatement of https://medium.com/nemofficial/attention-to-pending-candidates-for-nem-community-fund-ncf-8072421cab2b <- still don’t know why this was deleted?!
- video interview of @DaveH, @kodtycoon & @Bwanamakubwa by an independent person representing all NEM tokenholders. They should each answer several succinct questions posted by NEM community members ahead of time.
- Clear endorsements by several key (suggest 3-5) NEM foundation/committee members elaborating why this proposal is being endorsed, fast tracked and pushed ahead outside the boundaries defined by the existing NCF.
- To remove any doubt whether the proposers (@DaveH, @kodtycoon & @Bwanamakubwa) have the best interests of NEM in mind, I propose that they remove themselves as executors and instead submit their CV’s into a pool of candidates for the vacant positions. A special exemption would be made by the NCF to pay a recruitment agency (with global reach) to find suitable candidates for running the fund. The NEM community should be able to propose candidates as well. From the pool of candidates, the NEM Committee, in a transparent way, chooses who will run the fund.
Again, as per my previous statements and as a business with an active proposal, we support change, we support equity stakes but bottom line, I still have a feeling deep down that the current proposal is not ideal. I hope the suggestions above are received well and as constructive feedback. I’m passionate about the success of NEM and am committed to see the NCF succeed, even if CarbonClick is not funded.