Proposal 267 (Q133)
From Nouns Dev
A Nouns proposal.
| Language | Label | Description | Also known as |
|---|---|---|---|
| English | Proposal 267 |
A Nouns proposal. |
Statements
67
0 references
0
0 references
Explorer Grants
0 references
267
0 references
0
0 references
10 April 2023
0 references
Explorer grants
0 references
10 April 2023
0 references
200
0 references
4
0 references
200
0 references
0
0 references
6
0 references
Explorer Grants has successfully completed its pilot round, funding five individuals who have contributed significantly to the Nouns ecosystem. The program aims to run two more rounds of grants and invest further in the project to attract more talented builders. The pilot round revealed that grants are an effective marketing tool for the DAO and that there are many potential contributors who need a bit of assistance.
0 references
am I correct that Nouners will be voting on how to distribute the 28 ETH?
Most of the 28 ETH will be distributed via infinite rounds on Prop House, but not all of it. For the 6 ETH grants, Nouners will most likely vote on one of the spots, similar to the previous setup.
0 references
and that the 12x6 grants will be solely allocated by the Explorer Grants team?
For the 6 ETH grants, the Explorer Grants team will most likely do a similar setup to last time, where Nouners vote on one of the spots. Most of the 12x6 grants will be allocated by the Explorer Grants team, but not all of it.
0 references
How are we measuring or demonstrating the good job that has been done with the first prop to warrant the comp and increase in comp?
The Explorer Grants team believes that the people they've funded have done solid work in Nouns and have a decent hit rate/impact compared to other funding programs. One of their Explorers will be going on chain soon with a proposal as well. They also mention that some of the value is intangible, such as brand, builder attention, and potential. The increase in compensation is due to the increased scope of work, funding more people, doing more work like hack week, and running community/content/marketing to make Nouns the place to be for builders. The team also shares a Twitter recap thread as a resource: https://twitter.com/ExplorerGrants/status/1623097071602663424?s=20
0 references
I believe a question was asked if the belief is the grants team will do a materially better job voting for candidates than the DAO at large? by <@537427016501297152> --But it seems like the DAO voted on the candidates in the last round, so I'm a bit confused as to the process here, can you please clarify?
The DAO voted on one candidate out of the five in the last round. However, between that vote and the start of the grants, DCS decided to fund that candidate. That person (Danizord) still loosely participated in the program but didn’t get funding. The Explorer Grants team chose the other candidates from the applications they received.
0 references
in the Explorer Grants Pilot House round?
The Prop House round was how everyone applied to the Explorer Grants program, and the team then chose from those applications. The support offered includes weekly meetings with the Explorers, regular communication through Discord, and assistance with their work, such as connecting them to other builders and helping with proposals. There are no additional costs for the support provided.
0 references
Is the admin vs funding argument shortsighted? <@592889897011118080> if you were allocating 5x the funds could you handle it or would admin costs also 5x?
Admin costs would not necessarily increase 5x if the funds were increased 5x. The admin vs funding argument may be shortsighted, but there is a lot of work involved in running the grants program, including marketing, community building, and supporting builders directly. The effort required to distribute funds to applicants may not be directly comparable to the effort expected of the builders being funded.
0 references
Question for <@592889897011118080> and <@505897099360075776> - weren't the last Explorer Grants candidates selected via Prop House by the Nouns DAO voters?
The DAO voted on one candidate only out of the five for the last Explorer Grants. Between that vote and the start of the grants, DCS decided to fund that candidate. That person (Danizord) still loosely participated in the program but didn’t get funding. The Prop House round was how everyone applied to the Explorer Grants program, and the team then chose from those applications.
0 references
so kinda like lil nouns with centralized decision makers?
It seems like the user is asking if Explorer Grants are similar to Lil Nouns with centralized decision-makers. There is no direct answer to this question in the provided conversation context.
0 references
To clarify, I was inquiring around the other 5 candidates, for example:--> Finishing second in voting and receiving an Explorer Grant is -> @tigrisli , with an application titled Developing Nouns Tactile Technology --all of the candidates were in the Prop House round, did the voting decide the 5 that were selected or how did that work?
The Prop House round was how everyone applied to the Explorer Grants program. The Explorer Grants team then chose from those applications. The DAO voted on one candidate only out of the five, but between that vote and the start of the grants, DCS decided to fund that candidate.
0 references
Traditionally project management / admin costs should make up 10-15% of a projects budget. Would you still run the project if the compensation was 10-15% vs 50%?
The admin vs funding argument might be shortsighted. If the Explorer Grants team were allocating 5x the funds, they wouldn't necessarily need to increase admin costs by 5x. The ratio at this time could be considered meaningless.
0 references
tricky question that I think we, as a DAO haven't found an answer for. How should capital allocation groups demonstrate this?
It is difficult to demonstrate the value brought back to the treasury by any executed DAO proposal. However, the value of a proposal can be demonstrated through recruitment, support, and promotion of the work. Great capital allocation involves all the work around the capital allocation. A post-mortem debrief on previous rounds and proposals may be needed before a rework.
0 references
