-Why do people have to prove themselves over and over again every month-in every related proposal?
(I’m talking about initiatives that have been around for months and know what to do, not new ones/ideas)
some guilds/projects i know have been telling me they spend almost half of the month preparing proposal+reports worrying about each new one, instead of focusing on more productive work.
-I wonder if Marketing dao members hold weekly review meetings among themselves?
Whatever happens -a rejection -an addition/extraction -a totally different version -an approval, it should be faster and everyone should mind their business. Bureaucracy and mazes are of no use to anyone.
You are 100% right on this and Imo this should have been done from the start but what I’m currently taking about is different. How can we improve the current mechanism
and we should make sure that we are getting what we pay for and monitor regional guild activity with local agents. without them you can hardly understand if they are delivering what is promised or not.
There are many interesting projects on Near, and ever since I have been here, I have been seeing a lot of new projects and how over the days and weeks they have developed so beautifully. A constant level of support is needed from the community to grow along with funds. At the end of the day, we are building an ecosystem.
Monitoring can be done by local guilds and agents, who will then approve it further for the next round of funds.
Thanks for starting this conversation KriptoRaptor,
I want to start by saying that we do meet every week, and often schedule extra meetings (even on Sunday) where we discuss any outstanding proposals, from oldest to most recent.
I also want to acknowledge that following the recent review process, we have a lot of limitations passed down to us from NF. This is closely related to third point -
We are in a pretty tough bear market and EVERYTHING has been affected. At a time when even the Wallet Team and Regional Hubs are being cut off, it would be foolish to think M DAO could continue to grant top dollar with no oversight.
Which leads to the main point: at some point during bull market and rapid experimentation something went wrong. The perception from community seems to have been that M DAO was both an easy way to get money and a lot of it. The quality of content trending down while costs up. We were very close to stopping funding altogether but we were able to make the case that it is an important funding vertical and a major enabler for the right projects. Then the challenge begins on how to remain open to all, while deterring bad actors, and identifying great contributors.
I acknowledge the frustration of legthy reports - things are still evolving and they should be getting easier, specially for established projects. We’ve just processed three months worth of proposals - under new guidelines which required a lot more back and forth w teams - in three weeks.
We are closing the year with only a handful of proposals (only 3 over the 14 day threshold for assessment), and we’ve been deliberately pushing so that everyone who got approved by 14 December gets paid before NF goes on holiday on 23rd.
My only suggestion at this stage is to be more public - share your progress and have constant direct communication with Councillors when needed. There are strong performing teams that make it easy to approve, while others that we have to dig deeper to really understand what is going on.
Happy to take on any calls w these teams if it helps.
I think I understand, thank you for stating your opinions.
If you think that the quality and service have decreased, warn them to make the necessary improvements and propose a lower amount, if you are thinking of not supporting the initiative anymore, state this clearly. and everybody minds their own business.
I encourage you to go read the 80+ proposals we’ve assessed recently, the outcome and reasoning given to each.
I think I know which team you are referring too, this one in particular has some historical considerations that make it an edge case.
I guess what I am trying to say is not to generalise the experience of one project into the overall performance of the Marketing DAO on a public post.
I’ll also note that Council Member have worked all year at a fraction of what is considered fair pay. Then the post to review remuneration got attacked by anons on the forum and led to another FOUR MONTHS of working with no remuneration at all.
We continue to operate out of service for the community, but every public attack makes it more likely that all funding is stopped rather than getting that disgruntled individual the funding they think they are entitled to.
btw i find it ridiculous to attack remuneration proposals. i never did that neither any of the community members i met with. attackers are probably biased. it takes several hours to comprehend, investigate and comment on a proposal. considering the large amount of proposals being posted here it’s a reasonable amount even a bargain.
but with respect these still doesnt explain the real reason(which may be different for each prop.) of the problems neither propose a solution.
mentioned issue isnt limited to a specific proposal but many!