Looking forward to these developments!
I have a question about the timeframes for the proposal + conversions.
What is the specific timeframe within which a proposal can be made (to whatever DAO is appropriate for the context) and how+when is the price conversion calculated for that proposal? Given price volatility the answer to this question will make a considerable difference.
Thanks!
We donât have a standard timeframe. That depends on the DAO norms. For any proposals to the v1 Community Squad DAO, there must be time to answer questions & address concerns.
Price conversion is calculated upon submitting the on-chain proposal because you canât change the amount afterwards. Off-chain proposals would be priced & negotiated in dollars.
hello all,
a few insights I gathered from the first month of this transition. They are, by no means, exhaustive, nor I have a great suggestion about moving forward. With the move to Astro I hope the process will be a bit more streamlined and easy to control.
From what I can see, there are a couple of options when âconverting N to $â:
When the funding is requested the conversion is established and all payouts should, during that month, be made in according to the Near values agreed. That means that fluctuation can either increase or decrease the dollar value, but never the Near coin value. So, the ârisk/rewardâ belongs to the individuals. In this case, individuals risk getting more money than they asked for proposals, or less, and it is their perceptions that should be accounted for. The DAOs funds are easier to manage.
When the funding is requested the conversion rate is not established and all payouts should, during that month, be made in according to the Dollar values agreed. That means that fluctuation can either increase or decrease the Near coin value, but never the Dollar value. So, the ârisk/rewardâ belongs to the collective. The individual always gets his efforts rewarded in Dollar, but there is the risk, actually, of the DAO running out of funds. The DAOs funds are more difficult to manage.
I agree that this process can be managed intra-DAO, so no need to implement changes to the Verticals, this is primarily a gathering of intel, so others can reflect on their specific cases.
From what I can tell, either there is a mechanism to dilute the risk between both the individual and the collective, or the risk should lie in the individual. I say this because, if the value in NEAR is not fixed, then a different problem arises:
If the members of a DAO perform the conversion from N to $ âwhenâ they are creating a payout proposal (instead of that conversion rate being fixed âfor the monthâ), then we are engaging in a system that can, and will, reward âsimilarâ activities with âgreatly differentâ N rewards. 
Apart from the fact that this does, indeed, push individuals into âsellingâ a bit more, that is not the issue Iâm trying to content with. That would be a personnal choice, so I have nothing to say on that. The issue that worries me can be called âthe limboâ, also known as âcouncil has not voted yetâ (a bit of humor to lighten it up). Huge fluctuations when a proposal is still pending lead to disparities in N and dollar values, and no agency for the individual. Two individuals can create their payout proposal, for the same task, 24h (e.g.) apart and get different N values and different $ values, with no way of adjusting this.
I believe the shared individual risk (of all individuals in a DAO) is reasonable, but not disparities for members of the same DAO.
Iâm a little concerned for the potential that a bounties price will be listed at X value, but when the bounty proposal goes through The same near the DAO got has fallen in value and they can no longer cover the full bounty. What do we do in these situations?
I dont understand why we cannot ask for funding in NEAR, given we are working on NEAR blockchain, and the DAOs have NEAR on their wallet. I asked for funding in USD just because I had to, but I really prefer to ask and to build a project in NEAR, given that is NEAR that we are using, not USD. Why to have valuation and devaluation and risky projects, if we can have a stable value in NEAR coin? If I asked for 2 NEAR for doing something, the price of NEAR in USD do not matter, so the flutuations also do not matter, if we do this way.
Prior to submitting a request, the proposers can adjust the amount of NEAR in line with the USD valuation. These proposals should be reviewed ASAP to mitigate volatility
If you request funding in NEAR on day 1 and then the value of NEAR falls substantially then you might be in a position in which you canât fulfill the proposed work because the value of the NEAR requested doesnât cover it.
Proposals are still paid out in NEAR, and you can expose yourself to the volatility as long as you wish by holding it (but it should be utilised for whatever the funding proposal is for, of course).
However, to streamline the whole process and create an even more welcoming and straight forward process for Web2 users (and beyond), USD denominated funding has been implemented.
Are we moving away from DAOâs submitting monthly budgets and instead to individual bounties? if so this makes sense. if not then the DAO is holding NEAR for up to a month before passing that on to individuals and that seems like a lot of risk.
It depends on what the funds are for. If it is to pay the work of people that work on near blockchain, using near, so the volatility does not matter. If I asked 2 Near for build X, so whatever the price of near, I will receive 2 NEAR. And for me, NEAR is important, because I want mint on NEAR, collect on NEAR, pay other people on NEAR, and not in USD.
The problem here is for near to get more value. If I asked for some USD, thinking that I would receive x amount of NEAR, so if NEAR goes up, I will receive less NEAR that what I intended.
I think this USD conversion is only good for people that are not working completely inside theblockchain, people who must pay for services outside NEAR.
And to pay on NEAR, the DAOs will always know how much they have and how much they can fund.
Guilds will propose funding in USD and the Community Squad DAO (or whichever DAO is funding them if applicable) will request funding from the NEAR Foundation (in NEAR equivalent, and likely some buffer).
Tagging James and Shreyas as they likely have more clarified insight on this atm.
The inverse is also true. Weâre moving to USD denominated funding for the reasons laid out in the above OP by James.
Ultimately:
I hear you on the front in regards to appreciation, but that can still be found by holding it yourself if you are awarded NEAR for building x.
Maybe it would be interesting to know what the proponent of the project wants, dont you think? In my case, I prefer to build a project in near and receive in near, whatever the value of NEAR in USD. Some others might prefere to build it in USD. Why not allow for freedom? In my case, I am building projects on NEAR because I want to use NEAR coins and develop NEAR blockchain and NEAR stores (like Mintbase). Some other person might be interested in USD to something else. Just a suggestion here. I will not insist in this topic. <3
Most projects require funding to achieve the goals specified in their proposals. USD denominated funding actually works to ensure this since there is no exposure to downside volatility.
If, as in your example, you had to use NEAR as part of a development (e.g opening a store for 8N in Mintbase) then that would still be accounted for 
Yes, I know. In fact my project has a part in NEAR and another one in USD. But it is ok, I was just making a suggestion.
For sure, and please do keep the suggestions coming 
I think there are several issues with suddenly changing funding mechanisms mid growth cycle. It is important for interests to be aligned as guild and community contributors. As @thephilosopher mentioned above, we work and build on NEAR, pay out in NEAR, are committed to NEAR. This is how it works with crypto. Miners, stakers, liquidity providers, everyone gets paid in the native token for their work on the Protocol. Why is there a sudden paradigm shift now?
Great questions! Thanks for sharing your perspective 
My responses:
Existing arrangements will be upheld. We are continuously evolving the Community Fund processes to be more accessible, responsible, and impactful.
Discussion about the v2 NEAR Community DAO:
Sorry for the delayed response; I need to dive deeper into the forums about the DAOâs and funds before I respond in entirety but I appreciate your responses.
Is there a timeline on Astroâs launch? The new proposal of USD Pricing funding seems like you are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Meaning you want the benefit of having NEAR treasury but want to pay out using USD values. For those in the US, there is no large exchange that lists NEAR so one must go through the rigmarole of getting a VPN, Binance account, transferring, selling, and eating withdrawal fees. Without simplistic option to get compensated in stablecoins, I do not think this is fair.
Can you share other forum posts or discussions had on the matter? I want to be more educated and involved in this process.
I still am confused on why the funding mechanism is changing in the first place though. 3 months ago when NEAR was trading at $1.80, no one was complaining about being under compensated, because we all believed in NEAR and knew if we kept contributing value to NEAR it would grow and we would be rewarded.
Astro has liftoff! Launched last week, and weâre already experimenting with a v2 Community Squad DAO.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. The suggestion is to use $USD for off-chain price discussion, and our payout mechanism has not changed. Just makes it easier to get contributors what they need to cover approved expenses. Conversion to NEAR (or any other token) happens if / when that proposal goes on-chain to its respective DAO.
Iâm new to NEAR (Dec) so this isnât entirely obvious. Can you define âsufficientâ? Also, how much time? Who should âchime inâ? Can something get an immediate âgreen lightâ if a certain person votes in favor of, or supports?
Iâm thinking there is a better way to determine âsufficientâ ? ie: votes in a DAO, temporary staking, or something else