I also will be voting āForā this proposal.
I think this proposal is well defined. Further thoughts regarding the specs for this proposal have been expressed in prior posts in this thread.
Donāt forget to vote on this before the voting period ends @thegreg.eth @fourpoops @Sinkas and anyone else that hasnāt voted yet
Iāll be voting āForā this proposal and am generally in favor of the approach. My specific views are:
- Agree with eliminating the Max Grant Allocation amount but would like to see all three committee members agree to each grant amount.
- I donāt agree with the 3x of the Grant Program budget. I would prefer a iterative approach where the grant committee reviews the budget on a cadence and requests increase if/when needed.
- Commission for grant sponsors makes good sense to augment the monthly compensation.
Questions:
- Having the community craft RFP ideas make good sense. Could we afford a 1-5% commission if these are taken forward by grantees?
- Who is responsible for approving a grants KPIs? Is the grant committee sponsor sufficient or should all 3 grant committee members peer review?
The following reflects the views of L2BEATās governance team, composed of @kaereste and @Sinkas, and itās based on the combined research, fact-checking, and ideation of the two.
Weāll be voting FOR the proposal during temp-check.
Weāve been following the discussion for the past few weeks and have also provided feedback based on our experience in other DAOs in numerous instances over a few past community calls. We support the idea of renewing and redesigning Hopās grant program, and the overall direction the proposal has taken is good.
One thing that weāre reluctant about and hope to discuss further before an on-chain vote is the compensation for grant committee members. While we understand the approach of keeping the base compensation relatively low and introducing vested commissions of up to 15% of grants as retroactive funding, weāre not sure itāll yield the desired results.
First and foremost, the success of the grant program (and, therefore, the potential commissions to the grant committee members) relies heavily on their ability to promote the program and attract worthy applications that will positively impact Hop.
In our view, the base salary should reflect the demanding work of setting up a successful grants program and incentivize the respective committee members to do the necessary work. Although the vested commissions are a nice way to tie the committeeās compensation to the programās success (as we had also suggested), they should be perceived as a bonus, not as compensation.
Weād suggest increasing the base salary to at least $1,500 if we want this whole endeavor of renewing the grants program not to have been in vain 6 months from now.
Having said that, weād like to invite delegates and other governance participants to discuss things further during our Hop Office Hours every Friday at 3 pm UTC.
Unfortunately I missed the snapshot vote, but would have also voted in favor.
I missed the vote, and I am glad that it passed. We need more community innovations to make Hop more appealing and be known by the crypto community at large, not just a mere commodity among many bridges.
My real-world experience is that Hop is competitive (in terms of cost and UX) compare to even many widely-known bridges. I feel sorry about that Hop protocol is so little-known. I only heard once from popular Youtube channel.
Voted in favour. I thought it was a good approach to incentivize community development. @Bob-Rossi and @rxpwnz were afterwards elected. I see this was recently posted:
Keen to see where this ends up.
1 Like