Strategic Advisor Role & Grant

As part of improved transparency, I am disclosing that I’ve been approved for 1-year advising grant with the NEAR Foundation. The grant includes a $50k signing bonus for legal costs and setup, a monthly grant amount of $10k per month, and $125k in incentives.

My full-time commitment over the next year is to champion the Governance Working Group (GWG) and the mission of pragmatic decentralization that empowers self-governance.

As part of this commitment, I have been advising NF on the impact to the community of the recent hold on grants, Marketing, and Creative DAOs and the need to re-enable them, along with the need for stronger grassroots funding and other community concerns.

I appreciate your support, and I will do my very best to continue to champion the interests of the community over the next year, as I have for the past two years.


Congratulations @blaze!

Well deserved to one of the OG builders on NEAR. I can’t wait to see the value you bring to the foundation & ecosystem!


But as I understand it, these consultations were not entirely successful.
The last picture no longer shows regional communities.


Hello @blaze

I hope you have a successful year and that you are able to represent at least as much value as the thousands of users/members/builders etc that have been cut off of funds.

If NF sees the value in one person in order to spend 300k/year it might also see the value in thousands lets hope.

One question regarding the NDC: since you got this grant to work on it, does it stop being a commumity initiative?


Dear Blaze! It’s unfair towards mods, and other NDC team member’s when you’re requesting money for yourself and don’t care about the collective. You think about yourself only.

  1. Who has approved the grant ?

  2. Please show your proposal on the governance forum for Near Community

@marieke.flament @illia can you give comments here?

NF put on pause Creatives and Marketing DAOs proposals and at the time has approved 300k for blaze.

$25 000 a month :exploding_head: Are you seriously?


@marketingdao-council @creativesdao-council

Can you advise where I can find Blaze’s proposal on the governance forum?

And where is monthly report?

1 Like

Personally, I think this is a very naive way to ask that kind of question but in term of free speech and such, we are welcome all kinda of questions in here

Under the words of @blaze , please acknowledge that this is a personal signing contract between one individual and an organisation. In my opinion, @blaze has no obligation to report to any other individual or parties rather than the employer here (which is NF).

With that said, I hope it can shed some lights on your concerns and my recommendation is stop tagging non-involvement user into your comment. That is just harassing.

Keep Building,


Totally support your Role

1 Like

Thank you for the feedback on this. The diagram you reference is missing a few elements. It isn’t easy to put the NEARVerse on a single image. We will get that updated. We are also thinking through other ways to depict the NDC, any artist’s help is welcome.

To your point, regional communities are critical to the success of the ecosystem both in terms of local impact and compliance. As part of the deliverables of the Governance Working Group (GWG), we have a Guilds V2 program in terms of a framework. We welcome your expertise as the lead of the RU community.

The Community Treasury will be seeded with funds for the community, and what the GWG is working on is creating a framework to manage these funds.

1 Like

No. It is very much a community-driven initiative, the question is if community members are operating in a full-time capacity should they receive rewards. The community members in the working group so far have said yes, and we have drafted a budget to reward more dedicated members to the effort as well as community members with bounties for helping. You can find the budget here:

Grants are the process we have had in place since the beginning. This is just an individual advisor grant, it was setup this way for a few reasons:

  1. So that I did not work directly for the NEAR Foundation to be more aligned with decentralization and transparency.
  2. It allows me to be an individual and have opinions that do not represent NEAR or the NEAR Foundation.

I am NOT a representative of the NEAR Foundation or NEAR. Anything I say are my own words and do not represent the interests or opinion of NEAR or the NEAR Foundation unless specifically specified as such.

I care immensely about the collective. When I requested the grant and to be an advisor to champion the Governance Working Group (GWG) I communication three commitments I wanted to keep to the community:

  1. Guilds V2 program
  2. A focus on grassroots (bottom-up) growth
  3. Opportunity for every NEAR wallet, even those with less than one NEAR.

To answer your questions:

  1. The grant was approved by the NEAR Foundation. I would say the community approved my request from the poll too.
  2. Please find my request to the community here on Sept 3, with a detailed link to my previous work in the ecosystem.
    NEAR Digital Collective Steward - Blaze for Consideration and Vote

I have not provided monthly reporting, but I am happy to if the community would like. I will draft one for October as the first month.

  1. KPI, metrics, milestones?
    Everything that are you asking from Creatives and Marketing DAOs applicants.
  2. Public proposal? Did it get approval from the Community?
  3. Who has approved the grant? Name
  4. Structure of monthly reports based on milestones and KPIs

Blaze , did you write the Constitution for our community?


I applaud your transparency, you really are one of those people who are interesting to listen to.

But at this point I see that NF want to tell communities something, while completely cutting off any cash flow. (Well, some posts may not require that kind of time, but then again, if they don’t need to be translated.)

I honestly don’t know what’s the best way to make it comfortable for everyone.
But a certain amount of inaction is detrimental to communities.

IMHO, I am also well aware that any program will come to an end at some point.
But sometimes it’s important to find a person (maybe he can find himself) who can tell people that the program is finished and you can continue to build on it yourself, but we can’t promise you anything.
It will be fair and transparent.

I look at the forum and people submit and submit new proposals, but we know that since September there has been no movement in this direction.
Maybe write about it and stop it?


The Creative and Marleting DAO’s will be re-enabled within a week or two, as committed by the NF on the AMA.

A new Dev Workgroup has launched as well. Primarily focused on ZK at first, then expanded the scope.

The creatives DAO may be rebranded as grassroots DAO or another DAO will be spun up.

The NEAR Foundation has heard the community and is acting quickly.

In addition, the governance working group’s objectives are to enable on-chain collective decision-making to manage a new community treasury. Empowering the community to manage fund distribution to programs.

More community members should consider joining the GWG to let their voice count in creating a governance model to decentralize pragmatically and put decision-making onchain with transparency in order to distribute funds from the community treasury to the community.


hello :slight_smile:

In your opinion, should they compare the rate of eventual rewards they get with yours?

If yes, do you think it will be fair from a “community effort” standpoint?

The message that someone with my profile (so speaking only for myself, ofc) sees in this (and having access to a lot of info about previous grants for many DAOs and projects, plus NFs views on Verticals) is that your rate is really high (and therefore crushes surrounding rates).

(I will not make the mistake of downplaying you or your accomplishments. For all I know you can even value MORE than 300k. Not my business.

But 300k is a strong number when many awesome projects had to work hard for grants around 20k. It also puts into perspective the holding of Vertical support; the Creatives DAO mods are talking to NF about that, and you showed in this topic you have inside info about that process; so are you a community member or a NF employee [even if outsourced]?)

Therefore, regarding future work needed I would, as community member, defer to you the work that needs to be done. Higher payout, higher responsibility. If someone’s rate is 10x or 100x or 1000x higher than mine, I guess it’s fair to ask 10 or 100 or 1000x more work from that person. Since I don’t believe the rates will ever be fair moving forward, I just think you will have to deal with most work on your own; if people are reasonable, they will not accept working/collaborating under these conditions. One thing is a community effort, other is exploitation of free labour under false premises.

Having said that, sincerely hoping all the best, as a good NDC model (or ANY model that works, really…) is something we all want and have been asking for since the beginning (with NF being incapable of delivering).

However, I will not consider the NDC, moving forward, a community initiative, even if its described as such (also no problems there, but it’s cool to be honest about things). There are leaders who have special status and that is ok (for some). Just don’t let people think it’s an open process when it’s not.

When you do that, Imho it reflects poorly on yourself, on the communication around the NDC and NF.

It also reflects poorly on the general ecosystem and the “human factor” of the leaders in the community. Maybe the tech is awesome, but the rest is lacking.

This ecosystem is often acused of lack of transparency and the critics are 100% correct, sadly. I truly wish it was different, since I have built so much around N and have no real wish to move to a different chain. However, with each ‘case’ it will be harder and harder to stay putt.

To end it, I do not think you are to blame or am interested in attacking you personally. I’m only commenting because all we do in this place affects others, and if we do it with disregard to the Vision this chain suposedly champions then people will feel lied to.

I wish you all the best and hope you find a way to solve all the problems I see forming in your way.


One great falsification. Votes from fake deleted accounts who got rewards if they elected you.


Great start. Fake election, no transparency, don’t care about Community.

@marieke.flament @illia

1 Like


Who has approved 300k dollars?

Name of the person in Near Foundation. We need to know the HERO.

It’s a budget of 150 projects in Creatives and Marketing DAOs.

150 vs 1 Consultant Blaze.

And 50k sign in bonus like you’re a new member for Near Ecosystem.

Let’s pay 50k bonus for every new members in our Ecosystem?

You can see the comments of many real community members in good standing and their comment of support.

1 Like

Total votes 125:

  • 82 yes ( 20 real comments , 62 fake accounts)

  • 43 against.

A valid point is, in general, rewards are determined based on experience, area of expertise, and impact of the role on strategic deliverables. Those factors would determine the rate. In this case, I have stepped forward to be the Champion for ecosystem-wide governance with a community treasury that empowers the community with collective decision-making, better transparency, and to the fair distribution of funds. So the level of impact and value is high.

What determines community? We worked to define this in the GWG:


The people building, using, investing, and collaborating on NEAR.

If an individual or group has a grant to reward them for contributing to the ecosystem, are they no longer part of the community? Of course not.

Should the community be rewarded for their contribution to implementing an ecosystem-wide governance model and treasury?

This dialog is taking place in the GWG, and the overwhelming feedback seems to be the community should be rewarded. Should we run a poll on multiple platforms to gain more consensus?

Thank you for this, although I’m not sure what criteria determined a “fake” account and if you removed any “anti-votes” (Nay’s that voted for someone else that did not place a poll) from the numbers. In addition, I’m not sure how you were able to determine all of that detail since the accounts that vote are not visible in the poll.

This makes a solid point that the forum does not work as an official voting mechanism due to no criteria to define a “voting member”. So I concede that the poll was not a good indicator, but of the comments placed and those with merit and reputation, I believe a lot was said there.

The Governance Working Group is working to define the criteria of a “voting member” and an on-chain voting mechanism.

1 Like