[Update] New Community Payout Process - still in progress

going to support it! good job!


Dear @mecsbecs,

I am a little concern with some topics… This amount of money will go to a physical person’s wallet and then to the DAO’s? This person can receive this amount of money as a grant? Can we receive from NEAR a certificate that we are receiving a grant for a project? I am asking that because if this money is not a grant, then we would have to pay taxes. But if this is a grant or a donation, it s different. So I would like to know how to classify the resource provided by NEAR and to know if we can receive some proof it is a grant (in case it really is). If it is not a grant, can I add the taxes as part of the budget?

And do we have to send our signature? Or are we talking about blockchain signature?

I dont know whether I am right or wrong, but this approach to payments seems to increase the liability on individuals, instead of diluting it in the community. Would you clarify that for me, if you may?

All the best,

The Philosopher


I believe this is a step in the right direction. Kudos NEAR


Congrats on this update ! Great work from the Core Team :100:

This was indeed needed, even when privacy is a human right and we have the #cypherpunk-guild to be on watch, we need to do this sort of KYC for members who are receiving money, to avoid all type of malicious agents, like double account leadership, scammers with false projects, scammers with false communities, or any similar.

The good ones, we are more ! And thanks to all the good ones we are here today with all this advances, the internet is the democratization of the information, now Blockchain allows the democratization of the money, and with NEAR we are on the right path into the web3 !!!

Let’s protect our awesome NEAR community :star_struck:



Wow that’s cool and we are patience we know all things is for the good of the ecosystem.


Hello @thephilosopher - you raise an incredibly valid point!

The ‘Reward Agreement’ mentioned above in step 5 is the paperwork I believe you’re looking for as an acknowledgment of tokens given / acknowledging the grant awarded to the individual. Please check in your respective regions / wherever you file your taxes if this is sufficient documentation as only someone familiar with the requirements of your specific jurisdiction can advise you on this.

This agreement does ask for a digital signature, not a blockchain one. The provider is HelloSign if you’re familiar.

For this:

A great philosophical question from thephilosopher! You’ve hit the nail on the head to my mind as to the big piece of accountability when it comes to funding. It is difficult to have true ownership (or liability) and responsibility without identity checks and verification; and identity checking entire communities for the sake of encouraging greater responsibility would be unnecessarily autocratic.

However, it is feasible for representatives of communities to assume that responsibility on the community’s behalf, solidifying a trusted relationship without sacrificing the openness and inclusivity we strive for. A community is made up of individuals and cannot function well or sustainably without its leaders and accountable members. It is then up to the leaders and the community itself to determine how they would like to ‘dilute’ that liability - as you so aptly called it - and NF shouldn’t have a place in that self-organization.

The only way in which the NF Community Team is able to assist is with leading governance experiments - to develop potential governance options - to help communities/Guilds determine ways to help delegate that accountability and responsibility through DAOs. In particular, we have the upcoming Community DAO experiment, but removing the added risk of funding. For those interested, stay tuned for more info there on how you can be involved!


Thanks for this @mecsbecs and after all those discussions we had both here in Lisbon and via Creatives DAO it’s great to see some direction forming.

Just so that I understand correctly, the signatory who takes responsibility for the incoming funds to a Guild or DAO receives the funds in a wallet under their control, which could be a dedicated wallet for the specific project correct? Or does it have to be their main personal wallet?

Also, if the role of the signatory is to sherpa those funds to a DAO, then there shouldn’t be any tax implications because they are not holding on to those funds or off-ramping them, am I right?

I’m also curious to see how it works if any of those funds are routed into DeFi, like for example Ref Finance. If those funds are held in the Ref Finance wallet are there still any potential tax implications?

I probably have more questions, but these likely get to the crux of what I’m asking.



Yes, definitely! This has been many moons in the making.
The wallet receiving the funds can be a personal one or a wallet dedicated to the specific project. The general concern is that the wallet is secure, i.e. the seed phrase isn’t widely shared, and the representative is able to access it. Otherwise, it is up to you.

You raise a good point: if the individual is simply moving the funds from their wallet to the DAO, and then the DAO has a legal wrapper or is protected so that the individual is not independently liable for those funds, then the tax implications should be minimal. Although a tax accountant should be consulted about this in greater detail as this is my current understanding.

Generally as we’re developing this new process, we’re playing to the more complex cases where the individual is using the DAO more for the management of their business - which means, it’s more like a multi-sig. bank account - and so the liability for the use of funds is concentrated to a few or one individual(s). I too am interested as to how Ref Finance and the Community Board are handling the legal and tax implications!

Appreciate your questions and the drive to a gradual build to understanding for us all with these tricky concepts.


Thank you @mecsbecs, for answering me, and sorry for taking too long to come back. I am still getting used with how forum works. Sometimes I lost the answers.

Oh, nice! So it is a grant to the individual! That is wonderful! Would it be possible to see a model of this agreement, for me to take to a Brazilian lawyer? Thank you very much. I will look for some legal advice about that (my uncle is a tax lawyer, maybe he can help).

Do you think that, even that the leader receives the resources directly and then passes to the DAO, we could dilute liability by the structure of our self-organization? Or the leader would be forever liable? I think that maybe I should ask for a Brazilian lawyer, as you told me, given the specificities of each country.

Wow, Community DAO experiment! Loved that. Let me see it better.

1 Like

That is a wonderful question, Vandal. I was asking myself that too, if we can use the external wallet from our DAO to receive the resources…

One question can be important here: when we take DAO funds and swap it for DAI on ref, could there be any tax implications? In Brazil, right now, there is an ongoing discussion about taxing swaps (even from crypto to crypto), if they imply profit (relative to FIAT) and if it is above a certain quantity per month (if I am not wrong, if you sell above R$35,000.00/month). [R$ = Brazilian fiduciary currency: REAL]


Not a problem @thephilosopher! As long as you come back :hugs:

A template of the agreement will be included with the finalized process when it goes live.
Checking in with a lawyer in Brazil/your region will hopefully be clarifying on a number of fronts.


Looking forward to see the result of this proposal


Wonderful then. Thank you very much for clarifying; and I will look for it and bring here the results, as soon as we get the process ready.

1 Like

Congratulations!!! :seedling::seedling::seedling::seedling:


A great solution to protect the Near Foundation from fraud and scammers. Also great questions from @vandal and @thephilosopher. I’m just excited about what’s going forward and support this! :mechanical_arm:


Congrats, I am so happy to receive the news of this update, it’s a good one. Kudos to the core team


@mecsbecs , how are u doing? I am having some problems with the system. It seems KYC rejects my document and accept my selfie, or alternatively, it accepts my document but rejects the selfie. What should I do? I am council member of 2 DAOs for which I am doing KYC. Would you help me, please?

1 Like

Hi @thephilosopher, check your email :smile:


Thank you! <3 Let me ask you one more thing?
We had a problem, which is: near was droping its value while we were making the funding proposal and the contract itself. So when the resources got in the DAO, it was not enough to cover all of our expenses. We are waiting for near to go up, to try to trade, or we are trying to establish a payment method that involves paying in near at the conversion rate in the moment we received the resources. This has the disadvantage of paying less than we had approve in usd for the person. In case NEAR continues to drop its value, what should we do? When the process were made by the creatives, if near goes down 10%, we could ask for a supplement. But now that the process changed, I would like to ask you how we could proceed in our case. Would you help us, @mecsbecs?


Do you have more info on the countries that are restricted? If we are in the USA, does cause a problem with payment?