Dear applicants, we would like to inform you that the proposals that were not accepted will receive feedback from the Gaming DAO in the coming days. Our team will contact each of you to discuss and provide detailed information.
For KYC/KYB: KYC is required for all approved applicants.
Gaming DAO has completed a significant amount of work this month, comparable to previous months. However, it is worth noting that this month we received many requests for smaller funding, which created the impression that the total amount of rewards is significantly higher compared to other months.
In addition to the work completed this month, we also have a large number of projects approved in previous months with which we continue to collaborate. We monitor their progress and check the completion of their milestones.
We do not support the idea of approving large proposals just to ensure that the overall percentage allocated to projects is significantly higher than for rewards. This approach, in our opinion, is fundamentally wrong as it may push GDAO to approve grants that it otherwise would not, simply to maintain the reward level.
Moreover, in months when we approve a larger amount of funding, we never increase our own salaries, even if the overall percentage of remuneration was a very small percentage of the total request amount.
Any chance this ratio could be altered so that a larger % of the funding is going to the community?
With all due respect, it sounds like we are redistributing funding in our favor, taking it away from projects. This is offensive.
The team remuneration does not depend on the total approved grant amount. The team remuneration is fixed for now, but the scope of work consistently grows, because we do not stand still, but develop our DAO.
For sure, we could have approved huge grants to maintain the ratio between team remuneration and project funding. And for sure we will not make such a move under any circumstances. Among all applications, we chose and approved only those, which may provide value and deliver results in accordance with GamingDAO, NDC, and eventually NEAR KPIs. The same thing we did last month. And all previous months.
So what you’re actually suggesting is reducing the team remuneration for the same (but tbh a bigger) amount of work as last month just because totally approved grant amount is lower.
And as @haenko said, such an approach has fundamental issues, because it may push grassroots DAOs in the wrong way.
Great job from the DAO in supporting gaming projects on Near. We have seen a lot of quiet games come to life through the help of the DAO, we hope these games keep getting the support they need.
@chloe you raised a good point but I think if they had approved more proposals team remuneration wouldn’t be sitting at 43%. After series of vetting, they approved only proposals that would bring value according to the DAO’s KPIs as it should be.
Plus I don’t think team remuneration should depend on amount to be given to products/communities. It should be fixed.
I simply noted that for a community funding initiative, having over 30% of the funding going to the team seems like a large amount.
I personally do not believe that the NDC should be funding full time employment for all GDAO councils. If work needs to be done, then more bounties can be created for the community to engage with and complete.
Of course, if work is done, it should be paid for, but that doesn’t mean that councils should be full time employees funded by the community treasury/NDC Trust. These are community projects, and therefore I believe most funding, each month, should be distributed to the community. Maybe the general rate for council in the Gaming DAO is too high?
Not sure, but with the current set up, I personally will abstain
But GamingDAO itself is a community initiative. It was created by active community members with notable achievements in the NEAR ecosystem.
Our goal as GamingDAO is to boost the NEAR gaming ecosystem by doing different activities:
distribute funding among gaming projects and help them achieve goals following the NDC and NEAR KPIs
increase awareness about gaming on NEAR among the community
engage the community to play games on NEAR
attract new community members (both players and projects).
Because just giving out money won’t help to create a gaming ecosystem on NEAR, unfortunately. If this were so, there would be no GamingDAO, but there would be a gaming ecosystem thanks to the money spent by the NF and Human Guild on games. But we all know how those initiatives ended up. These were great efforts with big budgets. And we still need games and gamers.
GamingDAO, in turn, has much more modest budgets but sets itself an equally ambitious goal - to create a gaming ecosystem on NEAR.
And we honestly do our job every month and try to improve all processes. That’s why we hired new advisors and came up with a growth strategy - and all of that required funding as well. But if we want to continue to grow and develop - these are necessary expenses.
So GamingDAO is the same community initiative as other gaming projects on NEAR and unfortunately can’t be qualitatively running for free. We need money to operate, like all other game projects on NEAR.
?