[Proposal] Grants Policy Update: Projects with Tokens

[DisruptionJoe]

@annika

Based on FDD’s current process, how will that decision be handled? Is done in isolation by the policy squad, without community input, or does it go to a full Snapshot vote of its own? I assume others may not have clarity here either so I want to have this discussion on next steps in public

I believe I outlined what I think will happen if we decide not to do a snapshot vote here:

@DisruptionJoe

OPTION 1 - MAINTAIN “NO TOKEN” STATUS QUO

How it would play out for BrightID

BrightID appeal would most likely be upheld and they would be allowed to participate in GR13.

Unless there was significant objection, FDD is currently in favor of ruling to uphold their appeal for the following reasons.

FDD has already found through our Polis surveys that the community overwhelmingly wants us to fund public goods over following the letter of the law. In this case, BrightID is clearly building a public infrastructure needed for digital democracy. Their token was an opportunity to let the community drive it’s governance.

The token has not provided sufficient funding to allow BrightID to continue building.

I am ok with moving forward and having FDD make the call on the BrightID case without a snapshot vote. This is what has been done in the past.

The reason this case is different is because we built out an appeals process and found a legitimate case where the appeal serves as guidance to future policy. (as opposed to being a reviewer error or poor interpretation of current policy)

@lefterisjp

The proposed solution seems to try and address both which it should not. The 20m marketcap is arbitrary for the reason I explained above. It does not really address problem 2.

Because this situation is a “first” to make it this far in the appeals process FDD has built out to decentralize the decision making process, I do believe it is fair to judge both together. By saying we want FDD to make the decision or not, we establish a precedent which will be used for future appeals.

I don’t see how the decision here can not set a precedent, therefore there is no way to handle these separately.

However, because these types of calls (grant eligibility decisions) have always happened in FDD, the way forward that does not include a snapshot vote would be for FDD to make a call and write up the reasoning for it.

Then perhaps PGF could be responsible for updating policy in between rounds?

The token and funding info is all on the original post about the BrightID appeal: Novel Situation #1 - Project should not have a token or raised VC funding