Thanks @mecsbecs for putting this together and for clarification on the new processes! As payouts will be done in Near for now, how would a recipient of funds be able to claim a loss, as it’s understood now if the price of NEAR drops below 10% of what it was when a project was funded a request could be made to compensate so all project funding under that request is paid in full without a loss. Curious to see how that would look and if there’s any advice you could offer (for example the inclusion of a 10% buffer to the funding request maybe?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.