Wonderful proposal, and creative use of NEAR, but:
I don’t think this sufficiently fits the scope of marketing
I believe that, for regulatory reasons, the MarketingDAO cannot support the use of NEAR as a currency (in that it replaces traditional fiat in a particular jurisdiction like this).
Similar to your previous funding request for the expansion of your restaurant, this seems like NEAR is being forced into something that was going to occur already in an effort to gather funding for personal business goals.
Although we appreciate the enthusiasm, the only posts from yourself on the forum, with the exception of one, have been made in an effort to receive NEAR.
Now, there’s nothing inherently wrong with this, people are, and should be, rewarded for their work. However, it does raise some red flags when Councils review proposals.
In this regard, I won’t be able to support this proposal.
I would appreciate it if you would tell me what the scope of marketing (and the MarketingDAO) is.
How many times will I get to say it that this project is a one-off initiative? I do not own a gift store. I did not plan to own one. I merely thought it would be a great opportunity to get more people aboard Near.
The Marketing DAO funds community-led marketing initiatives in the NEAR ecosystem. To that point, it enables projects, guilds, and individuals who are actively involved in the NEAR Community to achieve their marketing goals.
I do not believe this fits the scope because, essentially, it is the subsidising (and, by the looks of it, the actual purchase?!) of items for a store, whoever’s it might be, in an effort to turn over revenue.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood, but someone (and someone’s business) is essentially applying to be subsidised here and has done so by forcing NEAR into it.
This does not constitute responsible distribution of NEAR, in my opinion.
Not so, @David_NEAR. I have made several non-funding related posts on this forum. As soon as I got into the forum, I looked everywhere for things I could do and how I could make myself useful. I retweeted a post not for the reward (the limit for those to be rewarded had already been exceeded - I did anyway). I participated in a survey too.
True, I have businesses that could use funding, but I continue to develop initiatives that can be mutually beneficial.
I’m not trying to downplay your efforts, I’m sure you’re involved with the NEAR ecosystem as far as you’ve mentioned. However, I don’t think that those activities suffice when the Council (and community!) consider proposals on the scale of $5,000 (and almost $70,000 for your first).
75k is a lot of money. I was being stupendously optimistic, I admit. And also unsure of the scope of funding available. But most importantly, I was convinced of the mutual benefit to Near that the projects held.
There is not a lot to do here since I came. And there are even fewer places to be active and get busy.
This looks a lot too much like a man’s world. And I’m a woman. I like to get things done.
By the way, you should have guided proposal, by telling me how much funding I could have instead of my 75,000😁
When assessing proposals, I am immediately sceptical of those where the benefits that the proposer stand to gain from the proposal, even if it fails, are far greater than what the community stands to receive in value.
Why are we paying $3500 for the goods that are going to be sold? What happens if the goods don’t sell?
$1,500 for two weeks of work? What are comparable local rates for similar work?
This is a one-off proposal from a new community member which means there is little to no data points that we can go by to help us assess application and no consequence to the applicant for lack of performance as they’ve already received funds.
Furthermore, I am also sceptical of proposals that not related in any meaningful way to NEAR, blockchain or technology. Simply adding the NEAR logo doesn’t automatically means it falls within out scope.
NEAR is the currency that fuels the network - used to pay for transaction fees and secure the network through staking. Promoting NEAR as an everyday currency is not a priority.
Why would anyone buying random items for Valentine’s care about NEAR before, during or after the sale?
In terms of Marketing we are willing and interested in funding are novel ideas that help us explain the the potential of NEAR - spark people’s imagination and invite them to join as active contributor. People who will not only get a wallet and use it once to purchase something, but people that, once ‘activated’ will move on to use other applications on NEAR, join a global community of contributors (guilds) and ideally go through the NEAR education channels and become developers, builders, and local agents for change.
I was going to let this slide before, I could have said I tried to help after all Near Protocol is not my business. I heard about Near and I saw all the awesome work Near is doing. And I was impressed and I thought to myself, why has Near not grown beyond this level. So I watched and made some predictions. And the Christmas period proved me right. People have not been buying Near with their money. Near sponsor projects and give airdrops to people who open accounts. But in actual sense people have not been well motivated to buy Near with their money. If you can come up with projects that will give people reasons to fund their Near wallets from their personal purse, then Near will grow. That was why I first came up with my ‘Flow Near proposal’. When I realized that the budget was too much for the MarketingDAO, I came up with 2 other proposals within the scope of their budget. I was intentional in chosing $3500 to buy goods. Since my aim was to get people to buy Near, I checked and discovered that the minimum amount of near one can buy is $30.so I have to have packages that will encourage people to buy $30, a 40% discount is a mouth watering offer that can make people pay the cost… If you divide $3500 by $30, there will be approximately 117 goods… Imagine what would have happened to the falling value of Near if people bought about $3000 worth of Near from different locations. Did you notice that I was careful not to include giving them airdrops to activate opening their accounts in this proposal. I wanted them to buy Near.
You accused me of just being after Near:rofl:. I don’t blame you. It won’t be your business whether Near drops or not. Because the value of what you are paid to vote proposals is in dollars not Near. So whether Near drops or not, your pay is intact.
So far, the only person I have seen who has been more passionate about Near has been @Dacha amongst the @marketingdao-council members.
If you look at your forum activity, and the lack of activity in the wider NEAR community (unless shown otherwise), you can see how this might raise a red flag when Council Members and the wider community are reviewing proposals of this nature.
Ultimately, Council Members must distribute NEAR in a responsible manner and that includes determining the extent to which a proposer has been involved in the wider NEAR ecosystem.
Otherwise, the Community Fund could be attacked by those who are here exclusively for funding (I’m not saying that’s the case for yourself, but the forum activity, or lack of, does raise a flag). Particularly important when we’re handling such high values as this.