[New Process] Community Payouts

If there’s a loss in value in $NEAR between the time when the proposal is initially made on the Forum and the Google Form and KYC have been completed, there is an opportunity for reassessment of the payout value on the Astro DAO poll being voted upon by the relevant DAO Council [while this side paperwork is being completed].

In step 5 as outlined here:

When the payout amount is being “doubly confirmed” in the comments now possible on Astro DAO polls, the proposer/payee can request a re-evaluated amount if there has been a drop in value of 10% or more. The Council members themselves may even draw attention to a reassessment but it is up to the proposer to flag if the need arises.

Adjusting payout values when there has been more than a 10% drop in $NEAR value has been something we haven’t previously codified [although the general idea has been discussed here] but has been ongoing practice on a case-by-case basis. Within this new process there is now, hopefully, a clearer opportunity for a final value check-in to happen before the Reward Agreement is signed and the payout sent to wallet.

Proactive anticipation of potential fluctuation in price by including minor buffers within the initial payout proposal is something that has been done within the Community without complaint (to my knowledge) from the Council members in question, but this should be up to the respective DAO Council reviewing the proposal to weigh in on.

Thanks for raising this @vandal!

1 Like

Hello @Vladislav_vl25 - thank you for your questions and I understand your frustrations with delays and blockers within our payout processes. Your continued patience as we work toward a smoother process across all of the NEAR Foundation payout channels is greatly appreciated.

Changes in process - especially when approached strategically and in a coordinated effort across multiple NF teams and the Community, as we’ve been trying to do - unfortunately do take time. Our legal counsel has advised that this is the best flow for now without incurring additional legal complications by transferring funds directly to DAOs (at this time). As we’ve been required to act without further delay, this process is the compromise we’ve reached until we can publish a smoother, more stream-lined payout process, which has dependencies on the development of better, consolidated tooling for our use.

Regarding the item about tying funding amounts to USD, please see my response above.

The estimated duration of this new process as described above is 2 weeks and we hope to, once we all get the hang of things, exceed expectations by making it even briefer with practice and everyone’s cooperation.


What you think about Onfido?

This service is flawed, it was on IDO Aurora.

Do you know what it problem is? I’ll explain.
You can’t pass KYC to countries like Russia or Ukraine and still some countries.
You can only pass KYC if will you use a VPN.

Using such a service can put participants in different categories (not all people use VPNs, not all VPNs are safe).
I would say that the service would add some variant of discrimination and I think it’s important to state that.


Also, I can’t understand how this will work with the Guilds’ Tiering System.
If the Guild tier 1 needs $20k, and you specify that the maximum is $15k. :man_shrugging:
And then how will the quarterly payments look like, will I have to confirm each transaction for 10k of these payments?

We need clear deadlines for consuls and voting.
If the consuls are inactive, as they were in the end of last year and early this year, can you replace them?

I just want to explain that we don’t need more consultants or advisors to work, we have to give those who work well - work quietly.
We need a clear and elaborated strategy with specific timelines.


HI @Vladislav_vl25 - I personally was unaware Onfido presented difficulties for unsanctioned nations (so not sanctioned nations such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea or the Islamic Republic of Iran) and so we are now discussing this internally with our FLO colleagues who have helped to set this up.
Thank you for flagging this and I’ll hope to have an answer for you soon.

With regards to how this process jives with the Guilds Tiering system, you will note
Tier 1 Guilds are eligible for maximum USD $15K for their main payout, while the payout ceiling listed here is USD $20K is to account for all payouts done through official Community funding channels, which does include the Guilds Tiering and other potential programs or projects. It’s always good to have some buffers just in case so there is space for new initiatives to develop, and so the USD $5K difference in these figures is intentional.

Yes, for every USD $10K given, a new Reward Agreement will need to be signed as part of the final step in the payout process. We are starting off fresh with everyone for the first payout under this process - so the Reward Agreement signature is needed from everyone in this first instance - but then another agreement won’t need to be signed until following transactions equal USD $10K cumulatively or there is one USD$10K+ transaction.

It would be great to have your input in the ongoing conversation here Community-driven DAOs: Proposed Structure for Community Fund DAOs as of Jan 2022 - #49 by INFINITY if you’re up for it! These are some great views on how we can be building a better approach overall to payout reviews and empowering active DAO councils with engaged community members.


Implementing KYC is a great idea.


Of course. Respecting everyone’s opinion, we must find the best solution to create a comfortable path for both participants and consuls.

And I have another question, if the guild have public people working for the NEAR, do they have to go through KYC if the NEAR has their data.


I can make the proposal for example and the beneficiary will be Vadim as the leader of the guild.

All NEAR Foundation and NEAR Inc employees have been asked to leave DAO councils in their official capacity so that these entities are not under scrutiny as legal ‘extensions’ of NEAR. The same mindset may also extend to Guilds or any other entity requesting funds from NEAR Foundation.

The individual working for NEAR would be encouraged not to apply for or receive funding on behalf of a Guild as it can present a conflict of interest.

By the above logic, requesting that an individual working for NEAR be a representative for a Guild hoping to receive funds from NF, in order to bypass another representative going through KYC, would be inadvisable and will not be encouraged.



I mean, before, I just submitted proposals, all the funds went to the DAO.
But in the DAO, even I did not manage them, because I am not a participant in it.

What I don’t understand and I think some agree with me, is, that we as individuals now have to write proposals every month to get our “salary”, when in fact with the new Connecteam tool we submit a report every day that can be exported at the end of the month.

I can only agree with @Vladislav_vl25 here. We should not introduce new processes that slow down internal processes. Isn’t one of the advantages of a Web3 project that it is faster?

I really do support the new KYC process, but not at the expense of the community!

This is more bureaucratic work, which should actually be optimized, reduced, or avoided in a Web3 project.


Hey Rebecca, and Near Community

I support this initiative as long as it doesn’t make things more complicated as @Vladislav_vl25 mentioned I also want to give a heads up for the Onfido.

Less bureaucracy and faster approvals will help community work more efficient. In my opinion marketing/community proposals should be reviewed as soon as posted and should be approved/denied in 3 working days. There may also some kind of appeal mechanism.(in case the proposer thinks his case is reasonable and needs to be considered again)

I also want to express my main concern about the new contract you introduced. We all live in different countries some of which are 3rd world countries. In most of them there aren’t yet clear laws about taxation of crypto earnings. Some demand/may demand crazy taxes in these earnings despite the country is rolling down in high hyperinflation (i.e. Argentina, Turkey)
If these contracts to be shared with authorities and then somehow with our govts. these may put us in very difficult situation and may result in us paying retroactive penalties.

My last concern is about us Community Builders/Full time workers getting paid in USD. It’s totally reasonable to ask lower the amount of $Nears we used to get a little because $Near went parabolic in last 6 months and I believe it will keep going up in the long term as we build and keep adding value to the crypto space.
Project founders, developers, VC’s, getting advantage of these parabolic moves why wouldn’t Community builders/workers? Aren’t we trying hard enough, contribute to the growth of ecosystem/community and maintain a healthy one? Or is what we’re doing less important, negligible?

My proposal is all full time workers who work for Near community (developers, community builders, marketers, dao council members, NF people) should get paid in NEARS+USD combined
i.e. if someone is working for 5k let him get at least 10% of his salary in $Nears = 4500 USD and + 50 Nears regardless of what Near price is.
Or we may work out with quarterly additional compensation to be paid with a preset amount of $Nears
This is crypto most of us are pioneers & investors.
Let’s not kill the spirit. Peace!


Hey @KriptoRaptor !
I fully agree with you! you summarized our conditions very well! perfect placement!


NOTE as we figure out the quirks of the Onfido system, please be aware that certain documents are not being accepted.

The following documents are not supported by the Onfido KYC software:

  • Driver licenses from India
  • Voter cards from Ghana and Nigeria*
  • Unique Identification Authority ID (India)
  • National Identification Number Slip (Nigerian)
  • New York, US State Identification card

EDIT: For the full list of supported documents by region of origin, please visit the Onfido website.

The individuals who have attempted to pass the KYC using the above forms of identification will be contacted to try again with an additional form of ID.

*voter cards in general may prove problematic so please try another form of ID if you can

***Please also be aware of the following when it comes to the Onfido KYC:***

For the Document / Form of Identification:

  • Document image must be clear and not blurry
  • Document must be valid and cannot have expired
  • Document must be uploaded in the form of an image and NOT a scan - take pictures not scans of the document in question

For the Selfie:

  • The selfie CANNOT be edited or manipulated in any way
  • The selfie must be taken live during the KYC process and cannot be older than 24 hours
  • Mac desktops may prove troublesome for connecting camera on Onfido so be aware of this and have another device at the ready to be able to take the selfie and upload it live instead

I agree with you partner :white_check_mark:

There are some other members of the Community, like DAO councils, that are going to keep a fixed amount of NEAR, so it is reasonable that we receive a fixed amount of NEAR too as Community members who contribute with the Growth of the Near Community and Ecosystem.

Totally :100:


Thanks @mecsbecs ! I´m following everything!
I sent all documents, id, company contracts, everything. I want to be Clearly.
If you need more information, send me a msg.

At onfido land page my status is:


This check has been submitted. You should hear back from NEAR Foundation soon after it is completed.