Strategic Advisor Role & Grant

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

So, when the outside world, like exchanges or governments or anyone else asks if the funds are in the hands of the community and decentralization and transparency are real on the NEAR ecosystem what will you do, send them the wiki link?

Anyone can use circular arguments to defend almost anything; why not consider the NF part of the community and instantly guarantee that the money is 100% in the hands of the community? That would be a faster decentralization model, eheh: just change the meaning of words! :wink:

Poor arguments, imho, but enough for me on this subject. Not my money, happy to see it happen from afar. Good luck everybody.


This is a warning for you! Please mind your language.

A continual of this behaviour will result in permanent ban.

@sheadyyy Your statement makes no point, you are trying to make conflict instead of contributing.
Near is going to meet its goal, with it without you….
So stop making despondent comment to bring misunderstanding here.
Thanks for your understanding, would appreciate if you bring vital comments to the ecosystem.
You can make your opinion know without been rude.
You can also object to proposals with a fair comment, or very outstanding reasons :ok_hand:

Thanks for sharing these numbers.

Can you elaborate on the above means in practical terms?

What are the specific day to day actions that championing the GWG entails?

Perhaps if you can elaborate a bit more we will all have a better understanding of what this means.

1 Like

What happens to community team who helped NDC at the beginning? Will they get paid or is all the budget now used in to the USD 25’000 salary for the leader?

How does one apply for this job at 25’000 per month?

In terms of the day-to-day, my objectives are to engage the broadest sense of the community possible in the process and decision-making:

  1. Champion and contribute to drafting a budget, plan, and resources to create and implement an ecosystem-wide governance framework. Drafts are put forward to the contributors in the GWG for discussion and then to the broader community
  2. Champion grassroots funding and guilds v2 model program
  3. Engage the community and leaders in the ecosystem to increase awareness, gain feedback, and build consensus through broader contribution to the proposed governance model for later adoption
  4. Engage external resources to review, consult, and provide direction on legal compliance and review of the Constitution and Governance model
  5. Present updates to the community, NF, and ecosystem leaders on the status and progress
  6. Ensure roadblocks are removed for workgroup leads and other contributors as needed.
  7. Advise on community issues or challenges related to funding and community growth.

Working full-time to champion these deliverables over the next 6 months to a year with the engagement of the community to ensure a common understanding of deliverables and to gain as much consensus as possible.

Current Phase: Discovery until Dec 31st


  1. NEAR Constitution
  2. Local and global on-chain decision-making (voting)
  3. Local and global on-chain journals, logs, and minutes
  4. Transitionary Governing bodies, their operations, powers, and checks/balances
  5. Community Treasury operations, safeguards, and checks/balances
  6. Community Guidelines, Code of Conduct, and Dispute Resolution
  7. GWG Communications Strategy
  8. GWG Community Engagement Strategy
  9. DAO V2 Governance Model
  10. Glossary of Terms and Conditions
  11. Community Onboarding, Badge, and Promotion Program
  12. Grass Roots Growth & Sustainability Strategy

Depending on the final scope and definition, some of the objectives may not be completed within a year and will need to be moved to a later phase.

We hold weekly community updates on Tuesday, please find last week’s update here:

We have multiple line items in the budget to this point:

  1. For contributors working in a full-time or part-time capacity that are responsible for the delivery of specific objectives
  2. For contributors from the community to contribute via bounties.

The budget is in active discussion. A Q4 budget and a Q1 budget will be drafted.

1 Like

Bro, you are often a distraction when important conversations are going on. You should consider your statements before bringing them out

I’m more of a straight shooter. My day to day involves serving my users and creating value in the marketplace. In the interest of supporting my users it now appears that I must also start politicking on these forums. IMHO, my time would be better spent in the text editor.

Given my experience thus far with the NEAR ecosystem, it is hard to put a charitable spin on what you’ve presented here. What I am reading is mostly corporate gobbledygook and buzzwords. A better way to communicate with me would be to be more plain spoken.

I see here you’ve posted a 13 page PDF? It also appears that these documents are being produced on a weekly basis? After reviewing it, not much made sense. I’m reminded of politicians and FED speak. The words fit together grammatically, but as a whole it is hard parse them into anything intelligible.

A cynical interpretation of this passage might read as follows:

Advocate for more money for myself and my clique of insiders. Secure our position as gatekeepers of these funds.

Much of the same could be said of your 13 page PDF.

I’m very disappointed to be typing these things. Perhaps if the NEAR ecosystem were more transparent; if my experiences and interactions with the members of the NF were more meaningful, we wouldn’t find ourselves here. None the less, here we are.

In the above text you repeatedly invoke collective, community and other similar language. Yet there is a large faction of the community which is dissatisfied with the current goings on. If you truly want to serve the community, then perhaps it is best to start by addressing the trust deficit.

Again, I’d prefer if it were not my place to say these things. However the current situation has forced my hand. I have a duty to support my users. I’d like to be onboard for a consensus and have positive things to say here, but the cupboards are bare.

Consider creating goodwill before proceeding. Quell the controversy with meaningful actions. My views are shaped not by flowery language posted on forums, but from my lived experience interacting with the NF.

Looking forward to participating in an open ecosystem, sans gatekeeping. Hope putting this out in the open can lead to a productive dialogue.


And you’re a distraction too, @IgbozeIsrael This is the only thing you could reply to here​:tipping_hand_man:t5:

Congratulations at @blaze, sure you will Keep bringing values to the foundation and ecosystem.

can we coordiante on Builder (Community groups) vs Working groups.

Yeah appreciate your work! We always here to support.