GWG July Funding Request

GWG July Funding Request

Please find attached GWGs funding request for July to cover costs related to stewarding the delivery of NDC V1 Gov led by the NEAR Community. The GWG’s mandate is to steward and facilitate Gigs, RFPs, and Roles to BuiDL and deliver NDC V1 Gov by late Summer '23. We are currently in the Nomination period, and Elections will start in 30 days.

This is our fourth time requesting funding from the Community Treasury. June’s bounties are paid out in full. We have also created a new multisig to convert Near to stablecoins and pay to a smart contract auditor which have requested to be paid in stables. Those payments will not be disbursed until the audit has been completed.

We will be returning 11,000 Near of unused funds from the May round, leaving us almost empty at approx $500 USD.

Summary of Updates and Changes vs the Q3 Budget

The Q3 budget can be found here.

  • This is the first time our ask exceeds $200k, largely due to increased IT spend and one time legal costs. We are scheduled to go back below $170k for the next two months.
  • MarCom increased $1k due to a resignation and added cost for the transition
  • The OG STB program was not budgeted, increasing cost by $2k
  • Graphic support ran over by $4k due to creating a lot of election education materials
  • Tech bounties came in $4k from budget
  • MarCom spend $7k below budget
  • Fractal offered us another 2 months for free, saving us $2k in July
  • Tech contractor costs running an estimated $11k over budget, still to be finalized
  • We used $9k extra from the June budget for smart contract auditing, reducing the same amount from this July ask

In Summary, we are requesting $218,100 to cover July’s Retroactive Bounties, down $4,861 from the original $222,961 which was budgeted for July in the Q3 Budget.

Funding Request Details

The table below outlines the details of GWG’s request for funding from the Community Treasury for bounties incurred during the month of June 2023:

Category Line Item Budget Updated Request Difference Ratio
Gov Design Core Contributor: Governance July $4,500 $3,500 -$1,000 78%
Gov Design Retained Contributor: UX Design July $4,000 $4,000 $0 100%
GWG Admin & Finance Core Contributor: Budget & Bounties July $10,000 $10,000 $0 100%
GWG Admin & Finance Core Contributor: Scheduler July $6,000 $6,000 $0 100%
GWG Admin & Finance Core Contributor: WG Coaching + Process Management July $10,000 $10,000 $0 100%
GWG Admin & Finance Core Contributor, Pollster July $4,500 $6,500 $2,000 144%
GWG Admin & Finance Expenses: Admin Tools & subscriptions July $4,500 $4,500 $0 100%
GWG Admin & Finance General Grants & Bounties: Legal July $8,000 $8,000 $0 100%
GWG Admin & Finance Contingency Funds July $22,500 $22,500 $0 100%
Legal Core Contributor: Legal July $4,500 $4,500 $0 100%
Legal Expenses: Corporate fees July $22,000 $22,000 $0 100%
MarCom Community Mods July $3,500 $3,500 $0 100%
MarCom Core Contributor, Community July $6,000 $6,000 $0 100%
MarCom Core Contributor, Comms July $3,000 $3,000 $0 100%
MarCom Core Contributor, Growth July $6,000 $7,000 $1,000 117%
MarCom Graphics design July $1,600 $5,300 $3,700 331%
MarCom Marcom: Bounties July $25,000 $18,000 -$7,000 72%
Tech Core Contributor: Product Lead July $13,000 $13,000 $0 100%
Tech Core Contributor: Tech Architect July $9,000 $9,000 $0 100%
Tech General Grants & Bounties: Tech WG: July $5,000 $1,000 -$4,000 20%
Tech Tech WG: Fractal July $2,000 $0 -$2,000 0%
Tech Tech WG: in house engineer July $12,500 $12,500 $0 100%
Tech Tech WG: open July $500 $500 $0 100%
Tech Tech WG: retained contractor 1 July $2,000 $1,000 -$1,000 50%
Tech Tech WG: retained contractor 2 July $7,800 $19,000 $11,200 244%
Tech Tech: Audit July $8,961 $0 -$8,961 0%
Tech Tech: Indexers July $4,800 $4,800 $0 100%
Tech Tech: Nominate / Kudos UI July $11,800 $13,000 $1,200 110%
$222,961 $218,100 -$4,861

Hello @Kazander! As a community member, I’m interested in a more detailed and transparent request. Transparency, accountability, and openness are essential goals for any working group and community. These are not my words, these are Illia’s words.

But why am I not seeing this in GWG?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t see any names here, who are doing what and why they are being paid so much.

To avoid being just words:

Who is this and where is their monthly report?

Same question.


I have questions about each of these points. It feels like before the elections, GWG tries not to disclose any information, but after the elections, reporting and transparency should increase. But why isn’t this happening now? Why is GWG so secretive?

NDC is a great initiative, and I truly appreciate what some participants are doing. However, requesting funding the size of a small startup every month is just something unimaginable.

Please provide information that interests the community, and if I’m mistaken and the information has already been published, show where users can find reports.

And yes, why aren’t you addressing the questions on the forum? I’ve seen many participants asking similar questions. I understand that it’s not always possible to find time for this, but the community would appreciate seeing the answers.

Thank you! :heart:


@Lolson_tg i agree and get your point of view.
I’ve also wished to know more about who gets the budget, why, proof of work done and also how was the person put into position.
But I know I wouldn’t get a response so I would just accept the fact the GWG are been confidential with information that the community needs, this is the community treasury and the purpose for the NDC is to vest power to the community but I feel we aren’t being heard.
@blaze i would suggest more transparency report from the GWG as this isn’t good enough, whoever is in charge of budget is being payed a good amount of money to deliver the best and quality report.

Even last time @satojandro dropped a message for same issues but it wasn’t responded to, if the task is loaded for you, you can also request for assistance so we get quality attention and also quality report.

As we await the transparency commission I hope we lead by example not to leave the community with doubts

1 Like

Thanks for your questions.

|GWG Admin & Finance|Expenses: Admin Tools & subscriptions July

Admin, tools and subscriptions is a placeholder line item for reimbursing GWG Core contributors (including myself) for tools we use such as AirTable, Notion, Google Cloud, Fractal, etc. There is no “monthly report” provided for these, only receipts. We recently added the functionality to upload receipts and working on collecting and uploading the historical receipts as well. I’ll make the expense reporting public as soon as that process is complete.

This is a placeholder for Lit Collective who has been helping out in the Tech WG.

This is a placeholder for Ozy, our chief governance architect since inception and also General Manager of GWG since it’s v3 charter since v3 was ratified in early June.

I do my best to protect the privacy of those that wish to remain private or pseudonymous. That’s why I don’t include specific names for each line item. But happy to answer individual questions when possible, as long as they individually agree to it first.

We provided a full report out in a recent Tuesday update, in an effort to provide open and transparent bounty processing + reporting. I’m happy to share the same here: GWG Spend Reports

You’ll notice that it includes data up and to June, which is the last month we finished processing. That’s where we publish the reports and justifications we receive as part of the bounty request form. I have also included an interim report for July.

This post is about forward looking expenses. It is true that we have not yet made a process for publishing all bounty request prior to internal processing and bounty payment. Is that something you’d like to see?

  • The drawback would be that there is a lot of fluidity in those, correcting mistakes, adding missing data, removing duplicates, denying or rerouting requests to other DAOs, delaying requests for bounties not yet complete, etc. and it may give raise to a lot of misinterpretations, unnecessary questions etc
  • The benefit would be that we could crowdsource the request review process, or at least allow the community to review and help out in the process

There’s no tangible value here. I’m sure insiders will disagree.

NEAR would be at an ATH if meetings, PDFs and fluff were doing something for the ecosystem.

You can use as many buzzwords as you like, at the end of the day the community needs to see results. Whatever the GWG is, it isn’t getting us there. Time for accountability and a fresh approach.