Novel Situation #1 - Project should not have a token or raised VC funding

Agree. We don’t want to have ‘double standard’ cases popping up…

As a Grant Approver I’m very happy that this convo is taking place. This has been a turmoil for us…
We basically reviewed grants on a case by case basis due to the novel situations that appear in web 3 and because if the dynamic environment. Everything is evolving very fast!

@annika’s comment is a good start towards a more clear grant approval process.

That’s actually how we reviewed and approved grants until now.
@DisruptionJoe illuminated us on that and also gave the FDD a lot of training materials to understand why “case by case” is the only solution atm.

It would be awesome if we could separate those, but seeing how the space moves, in some cases this could prove impossible… Everybody is launching a “governance” token :smiley:

So atm I kinda agree with @DisruptionJoe’s comment, this is GOLD and really captures the essence of this whole discussion all from a more “practical” and bottom/up perspective:

That’s actually the way we handled all the situations thus far, but I agree that we should have a more “clear” policy or GE criteria in the near future.
Personally as a former “grant reviewer” I know from my experience that there are a LOT of cases that could be labeled as a “double standard”.

@connor’s vision could be a solution, namely separating the main and cause/ecosystem’s rounds eligibility criteria and processing, but won’t that just expand the “double standard” scenario to the ecosystem/cause rounds?
Like, selling a novel use case NFT would be ok in the climate round, but the same thing would be forbidden in the main round if they use the funds made after selling the NFT to build houses or smth like that(which doesn’t have it’s own round yet). Maybe I’m taking this to far :sweat_smile:

Thanks for starting this hard conversation @David_Dyor ! This has been an area of great uncertainty and it still is…

1 Like

Yes. This is my understanding as well.

For reasons outlined above, I’ve set them to “active” AND “clr Eligible” for now with the potential outcomes listed above based on us executing the full appeal.

This isn’t a call of if they should or shouldn’t be eligibile. It is only a call to allow them the same opportunity to earn for their grant they would normally considering the evidence and effort combined with the overwhelming desire of the community in our research.

It doesn’t mean that the appeal will be upheld or that they will be “clr eligible” at the end of the round.

Setting the thresholds in an arbitrary and lightly defined way is already happening. The complexities of the side rounds needing to be included in the main ethereum round is what is causing many of the gray area policy issues. There are also a few where I or Kevin made a decision in the past that ended up as a soft precedent, but isn’t written or defined.

The policy squad is looking to complete the audit and rewrite the full policy this season. From there it can be updated via the appeals system rather than arbitrary judgement calls from our or PGF team. Are we both on the same page that an appeals system to update precedent using the english common law model is a path we should continue on?

Lastly, I agree with you that PGF should own the policy in the future, specifically grants operations. Let’s talk more about this in CSDO.

I’d like to add here that I am making a small decision in a domain where I have had the responsibility to make the decisions for the last 5 rounds. With FDD, we have been creating more transparency and community participation, but when a grants policy or sybil defense decision needs to be made it has fallen mostly on me.

Now that we are communicating in this transparent forum, I am worried people will see me making a decision and claim “that isn’t decentralized!”

I don’t want anyone to get the impression that I feel I have the authority and am abusing it. The number of decisions that were required in the past 5 rounds was enormous. Most of the time, I would seek input from the team where my concerns were heard, but no one was interested in participating in making these decisions. Issues which are causing problems now like the attachment of the main round and ethereum round are issues I have been calling out since GR8.

Even during GR11 the PGF group wasn’t running the grants ops yet. Not to complain at all. I just want the public forum readers to know I’m not a benevolent dictator. I’m more the benevolent guy who happened to be in the role of responsibility to make sure shit didn’t hit the fan!


Excellent idea I totally agree. This can be another variable that ecosystems can use to shape their rounds.

While it expands the double standard out to the ecosystems it also pushes some reviewing responsibility to the ecosystem (depending on curation model). So reviewers will be able to lean on the ecosystem reps for fringe case help.

I don’t feel that way at all. You did an incredible job building out the dao. I kinda wish you had gone even farther down the Centralization path during the last 6 months. Because herding cats isn’t easy. We were trying to do very serious consequential work and yet in the early days tbh there were a lot of clueless folks trying to figure out how to be a dao, myself included. I think if you had been more bossy we might have skipped a couple challenges…at great cost ofc.

I feel the same about the GPG. I trust them and I want their explicit guidance to build this thing right. I suppose imo the ends justify the means. We can always improve our decentralization but if we don’t succeed operationally our decentralization debt is meaningless. I am aware that some people feel differently, feel that maximum decentralization is needed.


I just read through this whole discussion. I can say this, “Wow.” Everyone’s point is well articulated, kind, fair, multi-faceted, etc.

I, for one, now have enough information to make an informed decision, so I look forward to a vote being put up.

If the above discussion is any indication of the appeal process, I think it basically worked. Although, I think we can all admit that this level of discussion cannot happen very often. My preference would be to see this type of decision pushed off onto the community. Maybe some way to say to the donors, “This grant has been flagged as XYZ. Do you wish to help us decide?” Or, “Do you think this grant should be eligible for matching…” (Just thinking out loud.)

Also, I don’t feel any time pressure to get this done. As Joe points out this can be completed before the end of the round and, if I understand, no action means they get the match. This goes along with Ostrom’s principle of “punish infractions lightly at first and then ramp up…” I like that.


I think I even detected an additional reason for BrightID to be permitted. Adam explained the organization that created and manages the grant is called BrightID Main LLC yet the org that manages the token is Bright Dao, a 1hive Gardens Dao. Although both share the word bright in the name they appear to be legally separate entities. If this is true, then the grant applicant behind grant 191 actually does not have a token.

Adam can you confirm if these entities are legally separate?

1 Like

Yes, they are legally separate. Sorry for the late reply, and thanks for all your help David.

1 Like

Wow that sure is an unexpected twist. I think we will stay the course but this is a great fact to keep in the back pocket. Thanks for confirming.

1 Like

So, haven’t read all the comments yet, but if this is the case, we’re being inconsistent here.

Giveth is up & running and receiving matching. And they have an entire tokenomics system set up (giveconomy)

BanklessDAO the exact same thing, they have 11 related grants up if I see it correctly, most important one being Bankless Academy I think.

All are receiving matching funds.

(pretty sure there are many more, these are just the ones that popped up)

Edit: Reading up, definitely like Annika’s proposal here & hope this can indeed be owned by the grants team. Great to see this discussion.


The Gov post for approving the eligibility criteria revisions is now live here.

Let democracy run its course and go vote your preference! Poll will stay up till March 23.

btw, Approving this minor revision will still permit us to pursue the alternatives mentioned above. But with a safety net incase these alternatives don’t materialize.

1 Like

I commented on the other post about this issue and will keep my comments there to not split the conversation.

1 Like