We were really thrilled to see that the proposal also had overwhelming support from smaller Safe token holders.
Below I’m just sharing the current view on the Grants Reviewer Application Process that has been mostly aligned with the team, as we aim to start the applications as soon as possible now that the proposal has passed.
this information is iterative and being finalised internally
applications will only launch once the applications page and information goes live
Formal application information and the application forms will be shared asap in a separate applications page and announced on major Safe DAO channels.
I will update this thread with the latest information on grants reviewer applications, as it becomes available. Here’s what we have for now.
Application process: grants reviewer candidates
1. Read eligibility criteria and guidelines
Time and dates availability
Safe Foundation Code of Conduct commitment etc.
2. Fill out application form
— internal access data for Safe Ecosystem Foundation team only —
Email / Telegram (how we can best reach you with important messages)
Wallet address for governance and voting purposes
Safe DAO Forum handle
Social attestation (e.g. post from your most important social channel - ideally Twitter)
3. Post candidacy on the Safe Forum
We have identified three candidate roles to optimise for a diverse skillset amongst the grants council
Use template (to come)
Specify focus area candidacy (multiple possible but qualifications should be specified for each)
product + business
wildcard (e.g. open source / public goods / investment / community / growth)
Specify voting wallet address for governance (must match application form)
4. Optional extras
Promote your candidacy (make sure people know how and why to vote for you)
Join our Twitter Space in ~ early June for candidate introductions
5. If elected:
Once elected, you will need to confirm your acceptance and sign required documents within 48 hours
We will also likely need to ask you for your real identity and verify it for compliance purposes
We will most likely be onboarding committee members as contractors in a 3rd party HR tool
You will need to confirm availability for the grants committee onboarding (tentatively 5. / 6. July)
I know the template is not quite out yet. But I can focus on the wildcard. Love to play devil’s advocate when tech is being presented for a grant proposal as I’ve been in the other side of the grant interview and screening process many times with Aave, Aptos, Balancer, Compound and Prezenti (Celo). In the case of business, Alcancía (our startup built an on/off-ramp experience plus non-custodial wallet integrated with DeFi with less than 60k USD in funding).
We know which disbursement schedules and budgets are optimal to built quality product using SAFE documentation and the new account abstraction technology following EIP-4337. My main focus as a reviewer will be effective spending and grant disbursement.
• I can dedicate a solid 20-hours a week with proposal review and interviews. Can also grind weekends. Love crypto too much and actively looking for an opportunity in the reviewer role.
I have never taken the reviewer role, but I can assure you that from a grantee perspective, I will bring the transparency and budgeting needed from a resourceful allocation of funds and improve the metrics for the Safe Grants Program. My main goal is to bring indicators that show impact and development inside the ecosystem while being cautious with funding disbursed, a tortoise-based approach is always a nice-to-have for a hare-paced oriented program.
Any other questions about my capacity to review feel free to send a message here or through the appropriate contact channels.
Is it possible to undergo KYC with a legal entity?
We as @daostewards plan to apply as a single applicant. We will internally decide who can be the best reviewer for a specific grant, or we can select a reviewer between us who is available for the process. Does the core have any thoughts/suggestions on this approach?
Thanks for the question, you raise a valid point. Personally, I’ve thought a lot recently about the value of letting groups apply for individual roles like the grants council and I think it could be interesting to explore at a later point.
For wave 1, the grants council role positions need to be filled by an individual. I’d be fairly against having a group on a single council role in wave 1, as it would increase complexity and coordination efforts. We’re trying to make wave 1 a small, smooth experiment and not introduce additional complexity / unknowns to a new program. Crawling before walking / running and all that jazz.
It’s also, in my view, important that each person on the council is committed to representing the collective interests of Safe DAO, and not voting based on the interests of another DAO.
In the case of the [bankless] DAO stewards, I’d suggest you could elect someone to be your candidate for the council election, and put your collective voting power behind them. This person (if elected) would need to undergo KYC individually and sign the agreements with the Safe Foundation. This person would need to be elected [by Safe DAO] on their own qualifications, background knowledge and skillset, and not be able to share details of the grants committee internal discussions, and would need to make voting decisions of their own accord, and in the collective interests of Safe DAO.