NDC governance v1 - Sunsetting and Transition Period

NEAR Digital Collective
,
1

Dear Community,

December 2023 marked the beginning of the v1 NDC governance framework, designed to fund community initiatives through a bottom-up approach. The new governance system involved the election of three different bodies: the House of Merit, the Council of Advisors, and the Transparency Committee (the “Congress”).

The v1 NDC governance framework was conceived as an interim and experimental framework to understand if the framework and related funding streams could bring sustainable benefits to the NEAR ecosystem as a whole. This interim process had a limited budget and Congress has evaluated many funding proposals submitted by the community. The Trust has disbursed funds after a second review.

Overall, the NDC has funded more than 100 projects during its lifetime with a total of approximately 400,000 NEAR distributed to grassroots projects in the ecosystem. All the accepted proposals can be reviewed on Astra.

Overall, the work has been collaborative, with ongoing efforts to coordinate activities and reach a general consensus on the needs of the NEAR ecosystem. However, the planned governance framework has also revealed some significant weaknesses that led many Congress members to resign from their positions. Other groups in the community have also begun to propose alternative governance approaches and ways to create value within the NEAR ecosystem.

During the V1 period, the Trustees have been observing the work of Congress, evaluating the funding requests, and presenting their point of view to the NEAR Foundation. The shortcomings of the current NDC governance framework were identified as follows:

  • Excessive operational costs
  • Overly complex intermediary governance systems
  • Redundancy with other funding streams and functions available in the NEAR ecosystem
  • Difficulties in assessing the value proposition of funding proposals and results brought to the NEAR ecosystem
  • Difficulties in evaluating the work of the funded projects
  • Difficulties in evaluating the overall success and effectiveness of the governance framework

Based on months of work, observations, and feedback received from the community, the Trustees believe that it is in the best interest of the NEAR ecosystem to discontinue the v1 NDC governance framework and operations. To ensure a smooth transition, the Congress will continue to accept funding requests until May 15th, 2024 for activities taking place up to the last day of Congress’ mandate, which is June 16th, 2024 (the “Transition Period”). During the Transition Period, new proposals that require significant economic support or are taking place outside the Transition Period will not be accepted.

Of course, this is not the end of community initiatives for projects building on and believing in NEAR. The NEAR ecosystem offers many alternative avenues for financial support, and the community is already working on a new governance framework with more details expected in the coming weeks. For funding opportunities and other initiatives available to the NEAR community after the Transition Period, you should refer to the ecosystem map on NEAR’s github.

The Trustees extend many thanks to all the community members who contributed to the v1 NDC governance framework. It has been a very educational experience that has not been done before and many valuable lessons have been learned that will apply in all future governance and decentralization efforts. As part of the learning experience, we welcome the community’s feedback, observations and suggestions. We look forward to the next chapter of NEAR community initiatives.

The Trustees and the Enforcer

49 Likes
2

Dear Trustees and Enforcer,

Thanks for the official announcement regarding the current state of NDC and the plans for the future.

It’s a great pleasure to work as the admin & a member of Transparency Commission in NDC v1. Indeed we have faced many challenges since this was an experimental phase but we kept working to tackle some of them and developed number of processes that might be useful in the next phase of NDC.

“the community is already working on a new governance framework”

It would be grateful if the community and current Congress members could participate in this process and develop a framework which would be beneficial for the next phase. Would appreciate an open discussion. Thanks!

9 Likes
3

Hello trustees!

Could you please share a link of the chat or call, where is this discussion was happening? me or other congress members and NEAR active community members would be like to participate or work on this initiatives!

Thanks, have a great day ahead!

17 Likes
4

“If at first you don’t succeed, try, try, again…”

3 Likes
5

Thank you for making this clear. But the community would like to know more about the new system.

Let’s not forget what Ilia said:

NEAR Ecosystem’s values are:

  • Transparency - unless otherwise limited by law, contract or morality, all the decisions and work should be open for the community to see and participate in.
  • Growth mindset - we are continually learning, thriving on challenge, see failure as a way to learn and improve (not an evidence of lack of ability)
  • Pragmatism - instead of focusing on the ideal solution, focus on solutions that drive value for ecosystem stakeholders
  • Ecosystem first - regardless of where we each officially work, everything we do should put the ecosystem ahead of ourselves or a particular company. Don’t try to do everything yourself - engage people around you in community and bring new people.
  • Ease of Use - we believe that open technologies will only succeed if they are easy to adopt and use.

I would like the new system to meet all these standards. But so far I see a closed discussion of a certain circle of people.

11 Likes
6

While NDC V1 had some disastrous effects, it also had very interesting developments. For the very first time, we saw the Community at the helm deploying funding and governing, and honestly, no one has the power to take that away.

I ultimately hold those responsible for its failure: those who colluded in a hostile takeover and did not see the repercussions. Many of these individuals also hold enormous amounts of NEAR, so they will still hold the most power in any stake-weighted voting.

Overall, the challenges in NDC were factions’ unwillingness to collaborate, inexperience, disengaged congress members, and plainly some grifting, all of which stemmed from the coalition. However, there has been growth in these individuals, and they have begun to understand why NDC is needed.

The collusion goes all the way to the top, this is why I resigned.

You have Marieke to thank for the NDC launch; what they did to her was appalling.

Let’s be clear: 10-15 people make most decisions for the NEAR ecosystem. Yet, what have they delivered, and how much have they spent? I assure you it’s leaps and bounds above what NDC has spent, and yet they have not shown any real growth. Should they be shut down as well? We’re three years later.

The Community should rise up and speak against any centralized mechanism to govern this ecosystem.

Stake-Weighted Voting on NEAR without Quadratic and Proof of Personhood is Centralized governance.

20% of accounts hold 70+% of voting power.

The centralized version of growth has not shown real results orchestrated primarily by one individual. We have two years to solidify real growth and a narrative that sticks. Along with many others, I am no longer a fan and believe we need new talent in the ecosystem, new leadership, and people who believe in community at the helm.

Remember the vision of NEAR = Self Sovereignty

MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD…RISE UP…

remember this is supposed to be a decentralized ecosystem*…*:face_with_monocle:

6 Likes
7

I’d like to express my gratitude to the Enforcer, Trustees, and NEAR Foundation for giving the community an opportunity to try, and ultimately fail on its own terms.

It requires a true commitment to decentralisation to have remained a patient, quiet observer and allow things to run its course.

The NDC was a very challenging, frustrating and damaging time for the community. Watching something that was very obviously destined to fail led to a lot of shouting, screaming, resignations from congress and even top talent leaving the ecosystem. However, I can now see that the pain was needed - the evidence - so we can move past the era of Ideological and Cultural warfare - endless talks on telegram, mob rule by ‘majority’, etc.

A independent, thorough post-mortem is required. Those who were involved must be held responsible. Was it sheer incompetence, corruption, or a genuine attempt from people who are just ill suited for governance?

Whatever comes next, I hope that we break the cartel, drain the swamp of mediocrity with above average pay that has been holding this ecosystem back.

2 Likes
8

Independent vision from the person who observed NDC during the four months.

  1. Despite Illia’s clear vision, Blaze and Marieke had their interpretation of the NDC vision. This divergence marked the first step toward failure. Blaze, with pockets lined with about half a million bucks for his NDC stint, left NDC once his contract ended.

  2. Decentralization is a phantom; there is more hope in giving away legal responsibilities from people who left C-level roles within NF.

  3. Most of the projects from rotten ‘eco’ round table, with projects sustained solely by Dragon’s grants, are struggling to survive and still want to continue to control everything. They are pleased to sit in their swamp and not let anyone from the outside into it. It is everything about money and power control. Nobody wanted to have one more independent funding node.

2 Likes
9

Dear Trustees and Enforcer,

We at AC-DAO have been closely monitoring the discussions surrounding the potential discontinuation of the v1 NDC governance framework. We wish to express our profound concern regarding this development. Since its inception in December 2023, NDC has been instrumental in nurturing over 100 projects, including more than a dozen initiatives directly supported by AC-DAO, such as Aurora Play, Talentum, and PipeFlare, among others.

Each of these projects has significantly contributed to the richness and diversity of the NEAR and AURORA ecosystems. The support from NDC has not only enabled these projects to flourish but has also demonstrated the potential of a decentralized governance model to effectively allocate resources where they are most needed.

While we recognize the challenges and shortcomings outlined in your message, including operational costs and complexities, we strongly believe that the achievements and the positive impact on the ecosystem far outweigh these difficulties. The experimental nature of the v1 NDC framework was expected to encounter hurdles, yet it also provided crucial learnings that should guide future improvements rather than lead to a cessation of the initiative.

Several "whys’ to support the continuation of NDC:

  • NDC has empowered grassroots projects to innovate and experiment, leading to a more vibrant and diverse ecosystem. These projects often introduce novel solutions that might not otherwise receive funding through traditional avenues.

  • The framework has significantly enhanced community engagement and participation, ensuring that funding aligns with the ecosystem’s needs as identified by those most active within it.

  • NDC embodies the core principles of blockchain and decentralization, serving as a model for other ecosystems looking to distribute power and responsibility more broadly.

  • The issues identified are not insurmountable but rather indicators of where the governance model can evolve. Utilizing feedback from this first iteration can lead to a more streamlined and effective NDC 2.0. If a smooth transition from one structure to another is being prepared, we would like to continue to exist within the framework of supporting grassroots, and learn about the state of affairs in more detail

  • Rather than discontinuing the framework, a phased approach that gradually addresses these shortcomings while maintaining support for essential projects could prevent disruption and preserve the momentum gained.

We urge the NEAR Foundation and the Trustees to reconsider the planned discontinuation of the NDC v1 governance framework. We believe in its potential for significant positive impact.
We appreciate the hard work and dedication of everyone involved in NDC and are eager to help forge a path forward that retains the spirit of decentralization and community-led innovation.

if the transition from one structure to another is truly smooth and does not disrupt the existing project support model, then we will only be glad that the system has become more efficient

Warm regards from

banner1
banner11913×94 2.83 KB

7 Likes
10

The challenge arises when the resources required for decentralisation outweigh or surpass those needed to achieve its original purpose. Decentralisation is a mean/tool, not the end goal.

In the context of NDC, one can ask the following question: would a private or more centralized entity have achieved better output than its decentralized counterpart, given the same resources?

From a simple observation, one can say that NDC, in its current form, got somehow paralysed by its framework. Most conversations here focused on governance mechanisms rather than addressing actual ecosystem funding.

Because everyone possesses unique qualities and skills, I would argue that a good structure takes the best out of everyone. At the opposite, a not-so-good structure limits everyone in their capacity to deliver and outperform themselves.

Decentralizing ecosystem funding at a large scale is also uncertain and an extremely difficult challenge. We are lucky to be the witnesses of such an attempt. For that reason, what worked and what didn’t must be humbly acknowledged and documented.

I think the thematic/grassroots DAOs are very impactful for the community. NDC successfully puts them in the spotlight. I believe that, like states at the federal level, they should be given more power and autonomy.

Finally, maybe the new model can be less ambitious, yet more pragmatic. If the vision is to support new builders and utlimately the growth of the ecosystem, the key question is: how can I support them in their journey?

Some may introduce them to relevant people in the ecosystem. Some may like to share what they know about the ecosystem. Others may provide positive energy and vibes, etc. Here can fit inclusive, incentivised, permissionless and tailored processes (smart contracts?), that encourage people to help each other.

19 Likes
11

Hello, it seems to me that the decision to close NDC was too radical. NDC has made a great contribution to the ecosystem.Yes, this project had its drawbacks, but this is just an excuse to fix the flaws and get this system working to the end.

3 Likes
12

Hello everyone, I think that we need to fix the existing problems and errors, then find a compromise that will suit all parties, because the entire ecosystem is interested in this.

1 Like
13

NDC has it’s drawbacks but we can’t ignore the contribution it made for the ecosystem. We should work on improving the current form of NDC as it supports GrassRoot DAO’s if not we need more details on the transition period and how funding procedures will carry on as we all know GDAO’s can’t sustain without proper support from higher entities. No matter what comes ahead Community Growth should be our priority. I hope for the best!

4 Likes
14

As a community leader and ecosystem contributor, i (we) all seen the discussions surrounding the NDC governance framework in various tg groups and X threads, We have all seen the diverse perspectives shared by members of the community and OGs. It’s evident that there are both successes and challenges associated with NDC and decentralized governance in general, and it’s important to carefully consider the lessons learned from the NDC v1 experiment.

While some OGs and community members highlight the positive impact of NDC in contributing hugely to grassroots projects and regional community engagement, others express concerns about its operational costs and effectiveness in achieving its original goals. These differing viewpoints underscore the complexity of NDC, or decentralization, and the need for thoughtful reflection on its implementation.

Moving forward, I believe it’s crucial to strike a balance between decentralization and practicality, ensuring that any governance framework prioritizes the needs of the ecosystem while remaining adaptable to evolving circumstances like what we are facing currently.

Finally, how the community collaboratively addresses these challenges of the current NDC and works towards a more inclusive and effective governance model for the NEAR ecosystem.

Instead of starting another closed experiment, it is preferable to resolve the current issues and move forward.

6 Likes
15

Hello, nothing in this world is ideal, including NDC. But instead of closing or making a transition from one structure to another, it is easier to solve the problems and shortcomings that exist now,Improve what have now

In addition, will the new organization be able to achieve better results than NDC with the same resources?
-I think no,And all these transitions, creating something new, are just a waste of time

And also, if this is already the final result and nothing can be changed, then more details information are needed on how the transition from one structure to another will occur. What is the point and what are the expectations?

1 Like
16

Hello Enforcer, you have outlined enormous progress and as well setbacks as regarding the NDC V1 initiative.
I believe there is need for a compromise in other to strike a balance between the problem and what needs to be achieved.
Designing and Transitioning into a new framework might not solve the problem, since the current initiative shows not just show glimpses but practical value, i think there should be a balance in other for the ecosystem to progress.

Thanks.

1 Like
17

exactly, the fact that it has some drawbacks does not mean its bad or not fixable. something can be done.

18

We have been around here in different times, witnessed different experiments with their successes and failures.

I am glad that we can point to successes with the NDC V1 so as it has its ill areas.

I hope that this transition period can still be looked at such that the ecosystem doesn’t remain dry and many players leave again.

The NDC v1 has received community hope. Lots of people coming back to be active, builders emerging from the ecosystem and building dApps that helps the ecosystem.

Many GDAOs have been doing good and we can focus on the success and correct the wrong while keeping the horse ride.

We are the community, when we come into grey areas, we solve them ourselves and not running away from it.

The ecosystem is better with the community together!

5 Likes
19

Ok, NDC has faced challenges, but it could be fixed.
Now the new system will have to face the same difficulties. Does this make sense? If yes, It would be grate to see in detail how the new system will be better than the old one and how it will work with the community

2 Likes
20

Despite small, in my opinion, shortcomings that are easy to correct, NDC V1 has shown itself to be excellent as a Fund for supporting the of the Near Ecosystem and Near Community.

It was thanks to NDC V1 that we saw revival and a strong increase in the activity in some sectors of the Near ecosystem: Gaming, NFTs, Regional communities, active support for projects in Social networks, new projects appeared in the ecosystem and more.

Also, it was NDC that provided not just support, but stable, monthly support in the ecosystem, which had a very good impact on Near’s reputation.

I hope that the Trustees and the Enforcer will offer a good alternative to NDC because otherwise, I personally see no reason to close it, because the main goal is to support the ecosystem and community, and NDC V1 has succeeded in that.

1 Like