[Proposal] Grants Policy Update: Projects with Tokens

[DisruptionJoe]

Moving Forward with Input from this Thread

Based on the feedback from the community, and given we did not receive at least 5 steward comments in favor of moving this motion to a snapshot vote, FDD is moving forward with Option 0 for the BrightID appeal.

FDD Judgement of BrightID Appeal

After judging this case, FDD made the decision to uphold BrightID’s appeal, for two primary reasons:

1. The changing nature of how web 3 is using tokens such as governance tokens creates a divergence between the intentions of the community and the policy as written today. “Cannot have a token”
2. BrightID clearly fits the definition of a public good as infrastructure which supports digital democracy. Our Polis report which received 138 responses from the community overwhelmingly shows that the community wants us to “fund public goods” before worrying about the semantics of policy. While their launch of a token hoped (and still does) hope to give them a sustainable funding model, they have not achieved this status yet.

As a result of this decision, the BrightID grant will be included in GR13 and eligible for matching funds in the round.

As discussed above, policy will be re-evaluated post-round, and we welcome input on that process.

Thank you to @annika @David_Dyor, the stewards & community members who took their time to weigh in, and @castall and the BrightID team for going through the experience of being the first appeal to go through the full Gitcoin appeals process.

Situational Context

1 - FDD source council voted as the “appellate court” to decide if the appeal had merit to be heard.

2 - FDD put it to the community on the governance forum saying “we would like this to be a vote to determine precedent on how we deal with appeals at this level because it is the first case to get to this level.”

3 - Because it did not get enough positive steward attention to put it to a snapshot vote, Option 0 has been selected.

4 - This post serves as communication of FDD’s justification for it’s decision to uphold BrightID’s appeal, include them in GR13, and informs the community on potential next steps.

@DisruptionJoe

Not deciding is a decision! We might call this OPTION 0 - Maintain the status quo and DO NOT explicitly agree to FDDs authority in this domain and set clear boundaries

If we maintain course, this is what the outcome might be:

1. FDD source council makes a decision and writes it up on the gov forum.
2. PGF & FDD Policy writes up policy recommendations based on the gov forum conversation
3. FDD Grant Reviewers & Approver follows these policy recommendations for initial approval of new grants
4. PGF writes up a policy update between rounds to be ratified (has the problem of bundling many policy decisions into one vote)

@DisruptionJoe

How it would affect the Gitcoin Ecosystem moving forward

This would set a precedent for many other appeals to be judged case by case by FDD which would act as the judicial branch of the system.

Once a pattern was seen, then it would be appropriate for the legislative branch (Stewards) to create policy which would “hard code” the bottoms up norms created by the community.

I think it might help to say that option 1, letting FDD decide on a case by case basis is similar to English common law allowing the high courts to adjudicate on a case by case basis. The results of these cases comprise our legal canon which can all be used as relevant examples used to determine precedent.

FDD has continued to advance how decentralized and transparent our processes are. While not near perfect yet, we have come a long way from Kevin or Joe deciding. For GR13 & 14, FDD would be deciding most cases while building a system for the community to decide in the future.

In this scenario, I would push for FDD to create a tiered appeals system with the following characteristics

• Creation of oversight mechanisms at “appellate court” level
• Implementation of external appeals panel (Jury duty!)
• High quality documentation of cases and processes to make FDD appeals process “forkable”