[Proposal] FDD Season 14 Budget Request

Workstream Mandate: Defend Gitcoin (Grants, DAO, & future products) from threats to its legitimacy, credible neutrality, and sustainability. [Mirror Article: GitcoinDAO’s Trust Function]

Season 14 Budget Proposal

This is an AMENDED renewal proposal for the Fraud Detection & Defense workstream requesting budgetary funds for Season 14 (1 May 2022 through 31 July 2022). [Last amendment made Thursday, May 26th. Discussion period ends and proposal will be moved to snapshot on Tuesday, May 31st.

FDD is looking for the community to decide on funding and at what level. This proposal is a request to fund Season 14 (S14) and replenish its reserves for S15 (60 days calculated as â…” the approved Season 14 budget. Amounts listed below on each option are the season 14 budget request without reserves).

How voting will work on snapshot

Select the option that you think FDD should be funded based on the initiatives below. A vote for option 1 would count towards each lower funding option until one is selected.

For example

  • option 1 has 1 million votes (Not enough)
  • option 2 has 1 million votes (Counted as 2 million votes including option 1 - still not enough)
  • option 3 has 1.5 million votes (Counted as 3.5 million votes including 1 & 2 - This passes)
  • option 4 has 2.5 million votes (Enough to pass on its own, but the higher level is passed)


OPTION 1 - Fund FDD request $390,000 season 14 budget

(40% reduction from original request)

OPTION 2 - Fund FDD $330,000 and signal they should not perform a discovery of a sybil detection / Passport DAO

(49% reduction from original request)

OPTION 3 - Fund FDD $200,000 to continue round operations but not support innovation or round to round improvements.

(69% reduction from Season 13)

OPTION 4 - Do Not Fund FDD

(100% reduction from Season 13)

OPTION 5 - Abstain


We have participated in governance and lowered our budget request to provide a lean FDD working to make grants 2.0 transition a success. The full funding request includes the original 40% reduction requested. We encourage stewards to fully fund FDD with option 1.

Option 1 & 2 are fundamental differences on the timing or need to launch a sybil detection DAO that focuses on Passport adoption and utility. Ideally, GitcoinDAO would own 20-50% stake and have a 10% aqueduct commitment.

Option 3 is a vote against the current team or roadmap for FDD. It is a signal that you do not believe funds are or will be used effectively, but know that GR14 requires some level of fraud detection & defense work.

Option 4 is a vote against FDD existing.

Here is an updated visual of the different squads and where they sit in terms of operational needs vs innovation:

Here is each squad with the outcomes they will enable for FDD & Gitcoin:

Outcome Value to Gitcoin
Passport Protocol DAO
Production support of Passport & coordination with GPC to drive adoption and utility.
- Build a digital public infrastructure for accelerating adoption of Gitcoin Passport
- Idea validated via BrightID participation, MetaPod Pitch Competition, and Hop Protocol
Community Intelligence
Data analysis, model prototyping & validation, and sybil strategy center.
- Data analysis to find the best models for passport sybil defense
- Open source feature engineering pipeline turns behavior patterns into passport stamps
- Prototyping new features and models before pushing them into production
- Identifies new opportunities (low hanging fruit} for additional data-driven sybil detection strategies which leverage the data already collected
- Fulfills opportunities & requests for further collection and organizing of data
- Executes post round data analysis for grants round governance brief
Passport Truthseekers
Pure research finding insights & sybil stories.
- Identifies continually evolving sybil behavior to be codified in the detection system
- Statistically validates the algorithm and directly squelching sybil users
- Continually trains the ml algorithm to think like the community, not the engineers
- Creates patterns to be engineered for Passport to allow for specific GitcoinDAO uses
- Provides model for grant review stamps to be sent to user passports
Data Operations
Data center which handles access control, ETL, and process automation.
- Runs the end-to-end process used in production to detect sybil accounts
- Builds containers and automations to make processes consistent and easy to learn
- Supports other FDD dev ops needs & liason with Gitcoin DevOps team
Grants Intelligence Agency
Executes the critical functions associated with grant eligibility reviews, disputes, and appeals.
- Reviews and approve/deny new grant applications in under 48 hours
- Ensures all disputes and appeals are heard and executed
- In depth review of suspect grants to ensure minimal improper matching allocation
- Ensure a proper functioning integration from Grants 1.0 backend to Ethelo
- Provide data to be used in evaluating reviewer decision making issues at scale
FDD Operating System
Core operations & communications supporting FDD squads and contributors.
- Funds and directs the roles requested by DAOops
- DAO facing collaboration point to help communicate FDD role in the DAO
- Building on last season deep dive understanding of Is FDD successful in it’s mandate?
- Building dashboards for stewards & FDD with FDD round over round metrics
- Facilitates and synthesizes bottoms-up and top-down input to draft FDD outcomes
- Removes key person issues from the workstream
- Ensures that contributors are able to focus on the primary problems to be solved
- Creates accountability for outcome owners via strategic cadence and collaborative decision making processes which are seen as legitimate

High Level Budget Breakdown

Season 14 Budget Total = $x*

PLUS Season 15 Reserves = (x*1.6777)

Total Needed = $x + (x*1.6777)

MINUS Current Reserves = TBD* (110k GTC or approximately $254k)

Total GTC Amount requested at this time = TBD*

*The total will be adjusted based on the current market value at the time this proposal is moved to Snapshot and to Tally. The vote will be to send $USD value in GTC at the current spot price when moved to Tally or the 20 day moving average (whichever is lower).

This chart shows Season 13 budgets next to 2 numbers for Season 14 including the original requested amount and the final amended request.

Season 13 Recap

FDD Season 13 Report Card

Key highlights & learnings:

Sybil Defenders

  • GitcoinDAO now runs the full anti-sybil operational process (previously done by Blockscience)
  • Doubled the number of human evaluations done at â…“ of the cost
  • Classified sybil behaviors & ran impact analysis
  • Performed trust bonus analysis and provided recommendations
  • Won Metapod pitch competition and validated users for Sybil Detection DAO
  • Reviewed sybil assumptions and began work on mechanism design & simulations

Grants Intelligence Agency

  • Hit all primary round OKRs without getting data integration on time from Holdings
  • Assisted PGF ops in tag requests for eco & cause rounds
  • Began creation of “trusted seed” of reviewers
  • Designed curation incentivization structure for any community to have community curation
  • Grants Curation NLP model that can replicate the GIA team’s decisions with 69% accuracy
  • Reviewed and analyzed all current eligibility policy
  • A full end to end process mapping of the grant review process was created


  • First season of source council was a success and even implemented accountability measures
  • Developed FDD decision making process to encourage autonomy
  • FDD contributor experience survey implemented
  • Designed PEC model for bottoms up governance issuance within workstreams
  • Created a data science pipeline for requests from other workstreams
  • Created a data repository for public gitcoin datasets
  • Designed architecture for GitcoinDAO data storage layer
  • Made improvements/refactors/optimizations/bug fixes in SAD codebase

Season 14 Goals

These seasonal objectives and key results highlight our focus within Season 14. These are TBD based on the budget passing.

Lean GR14 Services

Objective: Provide lean Grants 1.0 sybil defense & grant eligibility services for GR14

  • KR1: Review and approve new grant applications in under 48 hours
  • KR2: Lower appeal processing time to average under 1 week
  • KR3: Lower the cost per grant review by 50% while maintaining quality

Protocol Centric Fraud Defense

Objective: Build a decentralization & protocol-centric fraud defense strategy for Grants 2.0

  • KR1: Identify 5 sybil stories for use by the Passport product team
  • KR2: Identify a clear trust bonus scoring algorithm improvement for dPoPP
  • KR3: Define at least 3 classes of stamp types for use in Passport

Become a Pluralist Service Provider

Objective: Build digital public infrastructure for grants 2.0 modular components

  • KR1: Model a non-sybil use case for stamps within GitcoinDAO
  • KR2: Provide 3 use cases examples for stamps
  • KR3: Conduct discovery on Sybil Detection DAO as driver of Passport adoption

Current Holdings*

This amount represents the total holdings of FDD at the end of Season 13.*

FDD Primary Multisig

  • GTC = 71,115
  • USDC = 87,585
  • ETH = 17.18
  • DAI = 6,000

FDD Ops Multisig

  • GTC = 25,340
  • USDC = 15,616
  • ETH = 0.375

FDD Payments

  • GTC = 0
  • USDC = 0
  • ETH = .3
  • DAI = 0

*The total reserves on hand will be adjusted based on the current market value at the time this proposal is moved to Snapshot and to Tally using either the current spot price when moved to Tally or the 20 day moving average (whichever is lower).

Team Updates

Source Council (Core contributors) - 9

FDD Roles

  • Collaboration [DAOops Required]
  • Talent [DAOops Required]
  • Accounting [DAOops Required]
  • Storyteller [DAOops Required]
  • WS Lead
  • CSDO 1,2,3

Full (Trusted) Contributors

  • Multisig Keyholders
  • Subject Matter Experts
  • FTE
  • PTE

Human Intelligence Task(HIT) Roles

  • Grant reviewers
  • Human Evaluators

Thanks for sharing! Some of my thoughts:

  • I don’t think the Sybil Detection DAO or software implementation of a permissionless reputation protocol are the best use of funds for Gitcoin DAO especially during this market environment
  • Is there a possibility of a very slimmed down version of Option 4?

Thank you for all the hard work that you have put into this Joe and thx to all the contributors that helped along.

I believe that the structure of the FDDs Budget Proposal should be a model that other workstreams could//should follow. It’s a clear win-win scenario for the DAO and also the respective workstream. The stewards understand what they are funding and the workstream understands the picture that the stewards want to paint. This will only lead to evolution.

As a DAO contributor and and FDD SC member I know how important the FDDs work is for the grants program and the DAO. I wish others would realize that and the fact that the FDD wanted to evolve to better solve some of the emergent and also unsolved recurring issues around sybil protection, credible neutrality and legitimacy.


Hello Linda, I believe that Option 4 is the FDDs budget already slimmed down to the bare minimum. If you are refering to Option 1, sorry for the correction.

I’m not sure I’m understanding. I saw Kyle’s request for a 40% reduction. The option 4 here is a 63% reduction from last season.

You and I have not had a conversation about providing an even slimmer budget before this, nor have I had one with anyone else. What have we not communicated in this process that you would like to see?


I’m not saying there hasn’t been proper communication in the process, I’m only trying to understand the possibility of a slimmer Option 4 but @ZER8 said there was not so that answered my question.

1 Like

From an FDD standpoint, I’d say there isn’t a smaller amount we would be comfortable with as anything further would not be a unit serving a mandate, but Gitcoin could survive a round or two by hiring for the execution of a complicated task. (Most likely FDD contributors, but we would need to know exactly which tasks were requested.)

Option 5 = Less than option 4 - Hired guns

Gitcoin would survive (probably), but there would not be a workstream serving the mandate. The services could be hired from FDD contributors, but Vote for option 5 if this is your choice.


  • Very low cost
  • Ability to replace autonomous workstream with service provider (No scope creep)


  • Lose insights and knowledge gained in the last year
  • Fall behind the red team
  • Potential for large losses for Gitcoin community - Probably not this round, but the following because the work isn’t being done to keep up with the evolving attacks
  • Laying off people who have done good work for gitcoin

Option 4 - FDD Executes the round at bare minum


  • Keep FDD an autonomous unit in GitcoinDAO still working out how to best fulfill it’s mandate and serve Gitcoin’s mission
  • Maintain knowledge and insights built over the last year
  • Lean grants reviews


  • Lose ground gained against red team
  • Insufficient funding to continue developing new models to serve grants 2.0 (Some will be done, but not sure how much can be done with the limited time and resources)
  • Laying off people who have done good work for gitcoin
  • Signal opportunity to attackers (Like announcing there won’t be a security guard on saturday night at a retail store)

Option 3 - Continue progress on classifying attack classes and mitigation techniques


  • Build on previous learning - Here is an example from new technique found in the last few weeks
  • Develop new techniques in line with dPoPP & Project history grants 2.0 future
  • Gain data on grants reviews to be able to scale Gitcoin rounds on grants 2.0
  • Understands that the human evaluations are the ethical underpinning that removes bias from our algorithms. We want the algo to “think” like the community, not like the engineers that built it. Our humans in the loop process is cutting edge ethical AI and the decision to defund is to put profit ahead of purpose.


  • Spend more (Less than any other workstream - Is Sybil Defense and Grant Eligibility less important than every other outcome the DAO works to achieve?)

Option 2 - Continue building on work to decentralize grant eligibility reviews for all future communities using grants 2.0


  • In line with intended outcome of helping communities to better allocate their resources
  • Shows an ethical difference between content moderation approaches in web 3 from web 2. Think of sybil defense as user moderation and grant eligibililty as content moderation. Did we learn anything about how not to do moderation from Twitter and Facebook?
  • Potential reputation builder and proof-of-project history compliment
  • Upside potential if generalized


  • Costs $35k
  • Could fail

Option 1 - Allow FDD to set a precedent for how to spin out efforts when the positive externalities to the ecosystem align with GitcoinDAO’s mission, but exceed the mandate of the workstream.


  • Potentially create large upside for GitcoinDAO in ownership of the public infrastructure.
  • Show how to build and launch public goods supporting protocols without VC funding
  • Huge Aqueduct potential
  • Why not build mutual grants with something we built and know works! Validation = See hop protocol sybil contest
  • Creates a model for how to split off projects with upside when an autonomous workstream’s scope creeps, but the scope creep is in line with the overall mission of GitcoinDAO, but outside of it’s critical mandate.


  • Costs $60k
  • Could fail

Over the last couple years the anti-fraud personnel and efforts of Gitcoin grew enough that it became a dedicated unique workstream of the Gitcoin Dao. In other words…the FDD was born.

The early years were full of excitement and potential, but this was not a permanent state. Like a classic confused teenager, the FDD had to experiment with identity. Finding/creating its identity in the rapidly-shifting environment of web3. During all this the FDD has protected its family, even as it brainstormed roadmaps to self-sufficiency and revenue-generation. The FDD was always mission-first. But we must now reconsider what that mission is.

Some believe the FDD scope has drifted away from the core mission. Before approving a budget they want assurances the FDD will continue to honour Gitcoin Dao priorities. I hear these valid concerns. I think most folks recognize the need for balance between mission & innovation.

The FDD has always been here to serve Gitcoin and this should continue. The FDD should focus on what the GitcoinDAO finds most important (every workstream should). The FDD is finding its dao IKIGAI just like an individual. Over the past 3-4 seasons I watched communication & coordination between workstreams improve dramatically. This helped everyone understand the big picture. A picture that now suggests low priorities should be paused/cancelled due to macro state.

The FDD is keen to tightly align with the Gitcoin Dao. If we came out of alignment it was completely unintentional. I am lifted by the idea the FDD can serve the dao even better! With the community’s input the FDD can identify and trim the fat. it is great that people care enough to speak up, and help the FDD understand and align with the Dao. We in the FDD are eager to boost Gitcoin Dao to the next level, however that looks.

There is no group better positioned to achieve greater anti-fraud results at Gitcoin.
There is no group with the solid history of the FDD and the technical partnerships needed to effectively protect Gitcoin.
There is no other group ready/interested to defend Gitcoin in the future. Gitcoin can be among the leading web3 anti-sybil/anti-fraud experts. This will happen via the FDD.

Some of the un-alignment accusations came as a surprise and the FDD should have a season to respond. If you think the scope of FDD drifted please give us the chance to demonstrate how aligned, lean and laser-focused we can be. Help us understand the dao-wide priorities so we can help the dao. Try to guide this crusty teenager before abandoning them. The results will be incredible.


My preference is for option 2. I think the extreme reductions of option 4 are unprecedented and would sacrifice some of the significant innovations the FDD has been developing, namely a new decentralized review model (called Permissionless Reviewing) and the in-training Machine Learning system which is becoming more and more capable. Option 3 features even larger reductions than were first requested by Kyle.

Lastly, I want to recognize our unity. It is great to see so many dedicated and loyal folks committed to the long term success of Gitcoin. We are all on the same team here. Go team!

1 Like

Thanks @DisruptionJoe and team for mapping this out. Dare I say, for the first time in a while I can actually understand the different funding options and the outcomes FDD would deliver with each. Huge kudos to the team for mapping out options in this way. I would really love to see more Workstreams approach this in S15.

I am supportive of Option 4 and on the fence on Option 3. The work to review grants, operate the rounds and offer an analysis after the round is valuable. I am still worried that some of the direction of FDD (model build out, approach to human evaluations and even the community model) may not be aligned long term with where I think FDD could be headed (this is just my opinion). So I will likely just stick to voting for option 4 for this season.


Thank you for the continued collaboration on moving this forward and taking all the steward comments into account and really taking the steward feedback on board. It’s been one of my highlights of this season to really see us all collaborating to find a middle ground for how we move forward.

I am wondering if there is a combination between these two? I would opt for Option 4 but I am forever wanting innovation vs stagnation so what would be a balance here where we continue iterating models (maybe it’s ONE per season?) for improvement but without a 140k price tag? It is not an easy or pleasant task scrutinizing to this level but perhaps a better or more clear definition of what " models for making round to round improvements" may mean or entail?

1 Like

Thanks for the meaningful and direct feedback.

Let’s say you are a sybil attacker. You make a bunch of accounts Simona1, Simona2, Simona3… This is a clear signal, but we wouldn’t see the usernames being closely related without

  1. Noticing the behavior
  2. Turning the insight into a data problem - A model
  3. Creating a process for continually evaluating and updating the model

Here is the example of how we recently created another model for fighting off your attack: Fighting Simple Sybils: Levenshtein Distance - HackMD

Now we know how to detect it, but we need to either manual squelch those accounts or algorithmically do it. Algorithmic scales, manual does not.

To make this “feature” a part of the algorithmic detection we must go a step further. We can turn the detection of the behavior into a feature for the ml model. This is the overall algorithm that combines many features to determine if an account is sybil.

But what happens when the legit user “Simona69” gets caught in the heuristic? This is why we have humans in the loop. What is Human in the Loop Machine Learning: Why & How Used in AI? | by Vikram Singh Bisen | VSINGHBISEN | Medium

The humans will notice that Simona69 is not like the 68 before it. This info will then train the algo that the high quality signal DOES have exceptions.

The more humans that we have evaluate, the more opportunities for us to spot the algorithm being unfair to classes of users. The community model is finding new features and models to incorporate into what you might call a “meta-model” or ensemble which is best capable of accurately identifying sybil, and more importantly - NOT SYBIL accounts.

We have discussed moving the data science initiative to DAOops and maybe this is the time to do that. It helps FDD, but could be more beneficial to the DAO as a whole. The interesting part of connecting the group to FDD is that spotting sybil behavior is a lot like moving your Scrabble pieces around to see if you have a word. Sometimes we know exactly what data to request to build a feature, but spotting new behaviors is a mix of active analysis and serendipity.

We could lower the overall ask to $115k for the round to round improvements and ethical guardrails to be in place by transfering the data science budget to come from DAOops.


This is really interesting actually and a trajectory I am seeing in other DAOs also - I wonder if there is enough understanding of the possibilities of DS for the DAO that would warrant a “DS as a service” function to be accessed by workstreams :thinking:

Thanks for this updated proposal Joe & team. I’ll just copy what simona wrote here because I wholeheartedly agree:

A quick question on this:

… are you saying here that you would be counting on DAOops to take over these roles? Or am I misinterpreting this? Because this is not really in our current scope.

This is also not something we could take on at this time I fear, data analysis that is crucial to the DAO at the moment is FDD related, so I would propose for it to remain with FDD.

On my vote, I am unsure how I will vote at this moment and looking forward to more comments from others. I’d definitely vote for innovation, same comments as Simona.

Thanks for all your work on this, I know this is a tough process but it’s making our DAO more transparent + resilient and us all better at giving and receiving feedback. Appreciate all you do.


Nope. Saying that the role exists because DAOops requested us to have someone in that role. It shouldn’t be by storyteller though!

Option 3 is focused on improvements, but not necessarily innovation. Options 1 & 2 have innovation. The difference being that they are creating new value or systems rather than continually improving or tweaking the ones we have.

Based on your comment, I think you are most aligned with Option 3. :grin:


I think this is very insightful for anyone considering options 1 & 2 or looking at FDD as future drivers of dPoPP adoption. [S14 Proposal] FDD Season 14 Budget Request - #50 by danlessa



I want to echo other people’s comments and thank you for taking the time to incorporate feedback from the stewards in the budget proposals.

Before talking at all about the current options let me re-iterate the feedback I tried to give in the google doc you had DMed me which seems to have evolved to become this proposal.

What I would like to see come out of the FDD WG is an algorithmic software solution for evaluation of grants and sybil detection. With minimal human input. I do understand that human input will always be needed at some point but it should be kept at a minimum as it does not scale.

For simple manual reviews of grants which is what I understand Option 4 to be I think even Option 4 is very expensive. Manual review and classification of grants is a very simple work that can be accomplished even by someone from Upwork for $10/hr so to say.

Instead, and please please correct me as I may be understanding the budget wrong, what I see is:
A request of $222,975 for 4.8 months (3 months + 60% reserves) for 5 full time contributors.

That translates to a 222975 / 5 / 4.8 → $9290.625 per month for each employee to do “the bare minimum” which is what I understand is manual reviews.

This is an insane monthly salary for just manually reviewing grants.

That said what I want to see from FDD is to focus and iterate on delivering a software solution combined with minimal human input. Can you guys pull that off? So far I have not seen the most encouraging results.

I see lots of hard to understand jargon and no software yet.

I am at the moment not sure what to vote. I would also want to see what other stewards say.

:sweat_smile: This is a very funny situation. Option 4 doesn’t mean only grant reviewing. On that logic everything that the other workstream do can be outsourced via Upwork? Am I wrong to assume this? I thought this was a DAO or is it a CAO in which we call it a DAO, but it’s just a corporation that’s online 24/7 ? Is that the vision? I don’t think so…

The FDD has multiple algorithmic solutions and the [Reward system] (GIA Rewards OKR Report) ( includes grant reviewers and is only one of the solutions).

The total cost of the grant reviews was exactly 14k last season and we protected millions of dollars of funds(more from an eligibility POV) . Do you think it’s expensive to do manual grant ?
reviews? :slight_smile:

I don’t think you actually know the issues/challenges we face as the FDD and even more so in the GIA which is in charge of grant reviewing. 14K was the cost of 12.000-15.000 reviews! The FDD does not mean grant reviewing…

We could hire people from upwork but that will cost us even more…We will need to train each of them…takes a season or two. We actually pay our reviewers with 10-20$ per hour atm… On another note I really thought we had the ethos of decentralization here, but like reading your comments I kinda see through that “mirage”. Even the way in which we recruited the reviewers was fair and open for everyone. We recruited them chronologically in the order they reached out to us… and we wanted to keep things neutral and fair even within our squads.

Reading your comment is like all my work within the FDD for the past three-six months was null and I can’t be happy about that… Why are stewards not even looking at what we are building and just “hating” on us? Is that fair for the contributors here? Is that fair towards me? Who worked 60+ hours a week and 80+ during the round to make sure the grant creators, our donors and our matching funds are protected?(4 real, you can look in our Discord during the round and see what’s up). Associating the FDD with grant reviews nullifies all the hard work done by my peers.

If you really care about Gitcoin DAO, the grants program and our community please try to understand what major issues we face …we have entire organizations trying to game the system, we have hundreds of people that are creating fake grants…all while running the round, ensuring sybil protection and trying to solve “unsolved” research problems…

Those people are not reviewing grants, I am the driver of Round Management, only my squad handles grant reviewing :slight_smile: and as I stated above that costs 10-20k MAX per round. This round we actually want to reduce that number with 50%, which is not fair for our contributors, but we need to reach a balance that satisfies the DAO.

That’s your truth, but is it the truth? :slight_smile:

We can have a call anytime (takes 10 minutes) and I can explain and walk you though the whole process of grant reviewing and why we opted for this system which works amazingly btw :slight_smile:

I’m sure that @DisruptionJoe @omnianalytics @Sirlupinwatson @David_Dyor and @vogue20033 can explain more about our collective efforts.

PS. I know and I completely agree what the DAO has some BIG issue. Parasitic behaviors are the threat to any organisation… The FDD is not the biggest spender and we work on one of the most complicated and complex set of problems. I don’t believe that by cutting our budget we will do the DAO a favor :slight_smile: If people vote for Option 3 which is less than 400k they will see that we could and probably will continue to save funds(from our donors and matching funds) that are more than that number. Have a good day ser :smiley:


Hi there! In short,

Sorry about that, we will try to simplify the literature that we are using so you can understand what we are working on and what we are doing/trying to achieve.

Fundamentally, we have two working algorithm for Sybil Detection classification and one application that can automatically run prediction/analysis from the human-in-the-loop inputs (Human Evaluations)

“ASOP” → Anti-Sybil Operationalized Process or “SAD” Fraud-Detection-and-Defense (github.com)
Explained by @danlessa in depth here

Community Model

Software (You will need a username and a passcode to see it, if you are interested let me know)

1 Like

The FDD is the biggest spender. (source: Dune)

Those people are not reviewing grants, I am the driver of Round Management, only my squad handles grant reviewing :slight_smile: and as I stated above that costs 10-20k MAX per round. This round we actually want to reduce that number with 50%, which is not fair for our contributors, but we need to reach a balance that satisfies the DAO.

Please describe in detail to me then what “bare minimum” is and where each part of the requested $222,975 goes where so I can make an informed decision.

You seem to have some kind of misunderstanding that it’s my or other steward’s fault for not understanding your problems or for not diving deep enough into what you are doing.

I am getting paid nothing to do this. You are asking money from the DAO and I am asked to say yes or no. If you want a yes you will have to keep it simple, keep it very short and explain where the money goes in enough detail so I can make an informed decision if the ask is too much or not.

If you give me to read very long essays I will simply default to saying no.


Thank you Armin.

The link to Github is broken. I assume because the repository is private?

https://github.com/Fraud-Detection-and-Defense/CASM <— this one.

Software (You will need a username and a passcode to see it, if you are interested let me know)

Yes that would be cool to try it out. Good idea. But first I would like to see code. I am a developer so that’s what I can judge best.