Hey everyone. Glad to see this thoughtful and constructive discussion of these important topics.
I personally feel strongly that projects should not be disqualified for having a token or NFT. Frankly this is the core infrastructure of web3 it seems misguided to eliminate projects from potential funding for wanting to build things that use cryptoeconomic building blocks. I’m focused specifically on ReFi projects and other projects in the cause rounds who are trying to use these tools to make the world a better place. I believe we should be encouraging the use of crypto as a key part of their projects infrastructure. Isn’t that what we want? Why would we discourage using cryptoeconomics and composability to coordinate and fund solutions?
I tried to explain this debate to a friend who isn’t in crypto and they couldn’t wrap their head around it… “wait the people in crypto don’t want to fund projects that are using tokens and NFTs”.
There is a big difference in my opinion between a token sale and the use of a token for say carbon credits or as a mechanism for governance. Yes these tokens have value but that is a good thing in these situations. Does it automatically mean these projects no longer need funding? Maybe if they did a token sale and raised millions of dollars that is a different story but in that case we are really talking about how much funding a project has already which is less of an issue of having a token and more an issue of a variety of external factors that effect the size of their treasury.
It feels to me like the token rule idea is a hold over from the ICO days. I’m all for taking steps to ensure projects are not scams, and focusing the majority of our support to projects that need it but simply cutting out anyone who is using tokens cuts out a big chunk of our community in DAOs and ReFi projects.
I think an appeal is one possible solution as has been suggested. Another approach would be to carve out some exceptions to that rule like for example not excluding ReFi projects for using tokens for climate solutions. “Appeal” feels a bit punitive, perhaps we need to be more nuanced about how these decisions are made especially in ecosystem and cause rounds. Refi projects are very up front about what they are building and why, they shouldn’t have to appeal as if they are asking for forgiveness for something they are doing wrong. They should apply for funding and we should have the capacity to make nuanced decisions based on use cases.
I am acutely aware of the operational constraints we are already working within and the implications of a more nuanced process. Thus I think its important we are clear about what we consider appropriate and what we don’t so that team members can focus on implementing those rules and don’t need to go through multiple rounds of initial review and then appeals.
If this is indeed going to be ReFi Summer we should think carefully about the implications of this decision.