Thanks everyone for your feedback and comments. Have now implemented changes based on the OG proposal above as a result. Below I outline what changes where considered / made including the rationale.
SAFE Token Grantee Rewards (alluded to by @corbinpage, @links etc)
Change: Payment and administration section
-
Due to current non-transferability of SAFE tokens, retroactive SAFE rewards to successful Wave 1 Grantees can be considered as part of Wave 2 implementation. The Wave 2 proposal, which would include retroactive SAFE Grantee rewards, will be reviewed and ratified by the DAO.
-
Any retroactive rewards would be subject to a two-year lockup period and is designed to encourage projects to participate actively in Safe governance
@Sam_rdj Questions / Feedback
No Change
Rationale
-
How will the Safe grants program be different from other grants program.
- SGP will be outcome driven with predefined objectives, with ROI/KR’s measured. See Safe Grant categories and associated metrics.
-
Will the grants program be transparent to the community?
- Proposals and feedback will be public i.e. all proposals seeking funding post initial refinement (see @corbin’s comment)
- Committee voting and decisions will be public
- Transparency reporting will be conducted and a Grants digest will be distributed on a recurring basis.
-
How will you call this a successful grant program?
-
From a quantitative perspective, we will measure success by evaluating whether our funding distributions sufficiently impact our primary ROI’s and sub-metrics in each Grant category.
- What is meant by sufficiently? The DAO decides on this given the post Wave 1 data, and determines whether Wave 1 is successful and should progress with Wave 2.
-
@jengajojo Lumpsum should be a function of total ask as opposed to timeline.
No change: For now we have left the proposal as is and will see how we can manage risk on an operational level**
- This is a fair comment, and very much acknowledged, we would like to avoid processing multiple payments for multiple milestones on small grants, if possible.
- The SEF and Grants committee will look into using Superfluid for small grants: this would mean:
- Only one grant payment
- Risk is managed and the grant can be halted during the open period if the team doesn’t deliver on communications / expectations
@jengajojo requesting clarification on what exactly this entails for applicants (completing internal SEF processes, KYC and tax compliance).
No change: clarification only
- KYC requirements are partially dependent on the size of the grant.
- There may be some restrictions depending on the jurisdiction / domicile of the grantee due to sanctions etc. but generally speaking KYC is very simple and fast
- Usually KYC involves sharing full name, address, domicile and a copy of the person’s identification
- For legal entities KYC may require incorporation documents, beneficial ownership etc. but is usually very simple for grantees.
- We can give grants to projects who don’t wish to be known publicly aka doxxed but they must be known to the SEF.
@links feedback: compensation 1500 USDC potentially too low: include token compensation
Change
Update proposal: Reviewer Compensation
- Very much noted and acknowledged.
- Updated compensation to 2000 USD a month fiat/USDC
- SAFE token rewards is not feasible as this point in time due to transferability. However, retroactive SAFE rewards for successful Wave 1 Reviewers can be considered as part of the Wave 2 proposal.
- Amended to 10 hr/week in effort table as this was previously unclear.
- 2 core contributor reviewers will be 5 hr / week and only review after first filter.
- 3 community reviewers will be 10 hr / week and review all projects.
Other amendments / reflections
- Timeline expectation of each grant, project length max value needed to be given?
-
Initial proposals should be focused on milestones over no longer than four-months.
-
Subsequent proposals and grants can be formulated for follow-up work, in the event this engagement goes well and a continuation is warranted.
-
Projects should aim to focus milestones to target the 4 month timeline of the first wave
-
Update proposal: as per suggestion above
-
To conclude, Wave 1 will be the first of hopefully many iterations of Safe Grants. This will not be the perfect implementation, but it will serve as our launchpad for SafeDAO and its ecosystem, and our learnings will be key going into Wave 2 and onwards. If wave 1 proves successful, we can ramp up the capital allocation significantly, provided the positive outcomes/ impact has been proven.
Given this proposal has been up for 9+ days. Would like to now progress this to the SEP phase, for further feedback and iteration for the next 7 days.