Constructing a Mutual Grants Committee

[Huxwell]

@owocki

This incentivizes the workstreams to keep requesting more GTC ad infinitum from GitcoinDAO. I would venture to say that if a workstream fails to meet its goals and thereby stays longer to consume more GTC , it should give up more governance rights in its eventual departure (or be shut down if its just not working). Not having this understood upfront increases the risk of misunderstandings + hurt feelings down the road.

We’ve requested 38k GTC previous season because we thought we were ready to scale and compensate more contributors.

However our estimations were not accurate enough, we made this proposal before having a proper product roadmap.

@Huxwell

Mid season 14 - Alpha version: testnet environment, not audited
Late Season 15 - Beta release: mainnet and L2 deployment, audited
Season 16: DAO and token launch.

Failing is part of the journey but we’re willing to improve and learn from our failures by minimizing the risks for the DAO and staying in alignement with our roadmap. So I’d like to suggest the following approach.

• instead of requesting more GTC, we will actually request way less for Season 14 and it would be our last season with recurrent funding from the DAO in both scenarios below.

Optimistic scenario:
Assuming that we got back on track after Season 14 and reached our goals, we would work on a mutual grant agreement for a proper spin off.

Pessimistic scenario:
If dCompass was to fail again for accomplishing the Season 13 goals (going to production and hitting KPIs) then no mutual grant agreement would be created.