Thanks for bringing this up @vegayp!
I want to provide my feedback on developing a framework for receiving Project Proposals for funding by the TEC, but before I do, I would like to review what it is we actually NEED to be funding within the TEC, and that requires asking questions such as: “What does it mean to Advance the Field of Token Engineering?” or “What types of projects should we NOT fund?”.
From my perspective (and it may not be popular), the best things we can fund that further the mission of our organization is Education and Research in the field of Token Engineering. While there are many proposals that are going to be interested in developing new economic and governance primitives, I hold the assumption that most of these advancements will be achieved from “private-sector” projects who will generate far more revenue and have much greater incentives to develop these primitives. This doesn’t mean we cannot fund projects that seek to develop new mechanisms, but we must be very judicious in how we spend the funds we do have in the Common Pool and that means we must be very clear on what types of projects we are willing to fund, and what type of value (like many non-profits, our value will come in the form of organizational visibility, and the Impact the projects we do fund have on the industry) we receive from providing that funding.
As far as proposals go, I really like the idea of taking the “whole” DAO approach towards informing, guiding, evaluating, and approving proposals that go through whatever system we have set out. I think it is beneficial not only to TEC member cohesion, but also for integrating these projects into the TEC ecosystem and having access to the right people/resources for getting the most out of each project proposal.
For this part, I propose the following framework and understanding of the “Proposal Journey”
I love the Proposal Journey concept!
- TEC Scouts takes care of creating and curating a database of Projects (this has started already), as well as a value exchange for both, and to identify how we can take a 360º view and integration of their proposal.
While the TEC Scouts can develop a database for potential projects, it would be really nice to have some type of portal where potential projects can create their own Profiles and reduce the amount of administrative overhead it would take to constantly seek out potential projects, evaluate their potential and make contact with communities and individuals.
We also should have a way to establish that a project has a credible intent to apply for funding, and if they do, their project should be evaluated immediately for response on whether or not the proposal qualifies under our criteria for Funding. (These decisions will not be easy, and that approval process should be immediate and probably involve the Stewards WG or a dedicated Funding Committee)
- Once the outreach is done, the members that will submit the proposal could/will have a session of Onboarding with Suga, in order to make sure they have the right information/tools and access to them. This could be a fixed time or a personalized meeting. (This also refers to technical information and cultural information of the TEC)
This one is a no-brainer, and I love it! The onboarding group should be able to provide all potential projects any information they need to become successful, as well as create points of contact and notify them of any updates within the “Proposal Journey”.
- Once they have been introduced to the community, Soft-Gov could take a look to the submitted proposal on the forum, and provide feedback if needed, if no feedback is possible, then just the “we have read it” check should be given.
While I would like to see Soft-Gov involved in this area of the process, I find that it doesn’t really fit very well with the objectives of the Working Group. At this stage, I would like to see the evaluation of the potential proposal by Comms before they submit it to the Forum. Half the battle with these projects is making sure that the messaging around why they are creating the proposal and what it provides for TE is adequately described. Clear communication will limit any conflict around whether a project is worthy or not to be considered by the community.
- TEC Scouts takes again the proposal that was submitted and takes care of distribution and potential linking of that proposal within the community, using the TEC Lounges, to introduce them to hatchers and contributors bringing another layer of feedback.
This is a perfect fit for the TEC Scouts. Gathering feedback on the reception of the proposal and informing the needs of the TE community for further funding.
Each of these steps within the journey require certain processes that have not yet been developed and because they span so many different WG’s, we should approach them one by one so that we have a holistic understanding of the system we are creating around potential proposals. And while this post was focused on the Proposal Journey, I think its important to consider the entire funding process. Here is a list of things that I think are important to consider for this process.
- ) Develop a strict criteria around what types of projects qualify for funding that further our MISSION.
2.) Identify a list of NEEDS within the TE community. These needs should hold priority when we consider projects for funding.
3.) Explore the possibility of establishing rules around funding (should we fund a large project 100,000 wxDai all at once, or should we milestone each part of a large proposal?/Can we enter into contractual agreements with potential projects?)
4.) TEC Scouts need to list project characteristics (within a database) that are relevant to evaluating those projects according to our criteria for success. (how big is the community?/what type of experience do the developers have?/is this their first project?/etc.)
5.) Onboarding should have a detailed process that includes not only the proposal journey, but also the reporting, and evaluation process of each project. Informing potential projects on every aspect of the process and communicating will make the TEC an attractive place to get funding from.
6.) Soft-Gov to evaluate the “campaign” process around funding proposals and establish boundaries/rules.
7.) Comms to be dedicated to creating a narrative around each project proposal, and what they are doing for the field of TE.
8.) TEC Scouts to be actively involved in the success of the project even after funding has ended. TEC should be about creating value and the adoption of sustainable TE tools.
9.) We cannot ignore our own economy. Establishing utility for the TEC token, and being an active presence in every major crypto project should be a priority that will allow us to fund more and more projects, and to create a sustainable system in the long-run. Without sufficient activity, we will be limited in the projects we can fund and therefore the impact that we have.
Those are my thoughts on the topic. Like every major decision we are facing right now, I think its important for everyone reading these posts to engage, share your opinion, and give our Stewards the most information to make the best decisions possible within their respective Working Groups!