Call For Changes To Making A Proposal On f(x)Core #11 in monday board

Appreciation for the Daoverse and Nammy teams

Firstly, we would like to thank the Daoverse @KuzoIV @Alchimist and Nammy @kenorb teams for taking the lead in being the trailblazers in our governance protocols. It isn’t easy to be at the forefront of such heated debate and it takes a lot of courage to deposit a huge sum of FX in hopes to see their projects come to fruition.

We have the utmost respect for both teams and remain confident that they will continue to strive for excellence and hone their craft despite this initial setback.

Compensation to the Daoverse and Nammy teams

Function X Foundation has refunded the 10,000 FX deposited by both teams. We believe that the refund was only proper.

In so doing, we acknowledge that our requirements for submitting a proposal under the EGF should have been clearer. We are now in the process of specifying the guidelines and processes leading to the disbursement of the EGF Grant. We shall publish our revised guidelines in due course.

However, we would not be refunding other team’s proposals in the future if their proposals are rejected.

The Function X team is committed to building a collaborative ecosystem. Therefore, it is not our intention to distinguish the community from the team. That would contradict our philosophy. We stay committed to our vision of working within a big team to achieve a common goal.

Towards this end, our team has dedicated their time in reviewing and addressing the issues that arose from the recent governance voting. Led by @DavidK and @zaccheah , our team members like @indra and @BlueStitch have been working tirelessly with the community project owners. Such engagement before and during the launch of the proposals will result in better quality products and services to the community.

Statistics and development grants in other blockchain ecosystem


Before moving on to discussing how we can improve Function X governance, I would like to just share some statistics across existing grants in the market. Here is just a snapshot.

At the time of request, the amount requested for both projects is about 1 FX to 1 USD. Here is a snapshot of some stats across other blockchain and gaming grants.

Blockchain Grants

Kickstarter & Gaming Grants

There are a few things I would like to highlight here with regards to amount granted and success rate for applicants:

  1. Max amount across the various grants amount to about $100,000
  2. The average project across grants is granted $25,000-$40,000
  3. Application success rate for Uniswap Grant Program (Q4 2021) is 2% out of 84 proposals
  4. Notable projects from the Ecosystem Support Program and Gitcoin Grants:
    • Uniswap: $50,000 + 120 ETH (about $120,000)
    • WalletConnect: $124,474
    • Ether.js: $25,000

Other Information for the grant applicants to consider

  1. What does the community stand to gain? This is also vital to protect the entire community’s interest, for example if the proposal owners were creating NFTs, they could commit to airdropping 20% of NFTs to the community. If not there isn’t a guarantee for a team to take the EGF grant money and deploy on another chain without giving back to the community
  2. Concept testing: Successful applicants would first and foremost have a well-researched and test concept and have some prior work to show.
  3. Team’s relevant experience to build and deploy a sustainable and workable application: In this industry, deploying a Dapp or applying for bug bounties would require smart contract or blockchain technical skills unless you are just creating an NFT. So first and foremost, accessing the team’s technical capabilities is vital, showcasing a github account.
  4. Milestones and deliverables: Having clear concise milestones and deliverables is key here, payouts will be made according to each quantifiable milestone made or based on a quantifiable metrics for example “Fully integrated metamask to Dapp” or “Reached/acquired 500 unique users”
  5. Application process: For successful applicants, the entire application process takes weeks or even months to finalize.
  6. Fund distribution: Approved funds are made according to each milestone delivery and the full amount will not be disbursed upfront. This is the same applied to FXDM.

Moving forward

According to the discussion and concerns raised by the community, we are exploring the following options to further improve the governance voting mechanism.

  • Quorum to pass the proposal

    1. Amend the quorum requirement
    2. Retain the same quorum requirement but the team validators are required to vote and disclose the voting guidelines.
    3. Retain the same quorum requirement and no team validators are allowed to vote to maintain the neutrality but set up a slashing mechanism to punish the public validators who didn’t vote.
  • Add more specific details to call for a proposal

    1. Specify the different grant levels and the requirements needed to be considered for that category. Example: Level 2, target: small teams/start-ups, amount: up to $50,000, requirements (if committee based of 6 members) : 3 approvals.
    2. Additionally specify the different types of categories for example: bug bounties (issues with existing code and proposed solution), building Dapps…
  • Voting in a committee of 6 reviewers to review grant applications

    1. This suggestion is drawing reference from Uniswap Grants Program
    2. Have a that reviews grant applications and have a initial budget of $750,000 per quarter
    3. The budget and committee members will be reviewed every 2 quarters
    4. Most foundation grants (eg. Web3foundation, Ecosystem Support Program) are managed by a committee of 6-10 members. Members of such committees are typically foundation members and this is a centralized approach. The approach that Uniswap Grant Program takes is a centralized-decentralized governance, allowing the community to vote in a committee to manage the fund.

Additional information and resources:

  1. Report on grants in blockchain and other grants
  2. Data file for grant_info
  3. Nammy proposal discussion
  4. Daoverse proposal discussion
  5. YouTube discussion

The above are just suggestions based on the approach that other grants have taken. We would welcome any comments and feedback!


I personally like how Uniswap manages their Uniswap Grant Program.

  • Most validators have a day job and wouldn’t really want to spend time scrutinizing an EGF proposal I feel, which is why I’d prefer a committee to be voted in by the community.
  • Additionally, the breakdown of categories like improving developer experience, improving user experience or growing the wider community.

I also like the process flow of Ecosystem Support Program (Ethereum)

  • In how they open an inquiry and start a conversation with the team applying for a grant and providing other forms of assistance other than just grant money, like technical support and guidance.

Also like how Web3Foundation breaks down their grants according to tiers and the requirements for each tier


First of all, amazing step taken by the team to refund DAOVERSE and Nammy creators. They have been the most vocal supporters of the project and this token of kind gesture shows the community’s support for them as they are supportive of the community.

A few thoughts on the Quorum:

  • It should not be changed as it is critical for the blockchain.
  • It ensures that the validators/whales (in a distant future) does not not gang up and change the ecosystem as they please.
  • The voting on the proposals should be for changes to the ecosystem like the foundation did on parameter change, polygon support and so on. Things that are critical to the functioning.

With regards to funding projects:

  • This should be done seperately. It must be different to the proposals that currently exist.
  • There can be a different system/page where projects can float ideas/concepts and the community can vote on them. This system would not need a quorum.
  • Top projects can then be forwarded to the committee for consideration. The commitee would consist of professionals and a few selected holders who would critique and see the feasibility of such projects. They can negotiate on percentages for the community, set milestones for fund release and their decision would be final.
    — This could ensure ideas for more projects are generated for the pipeline and filtered first by community and then experts.
  • Proposals which finally pass should refund (fx required for voting) or provide some form of rewards to the people who supported it so the community is motivated in finding projects with high potential and ignore the ones which fall short.
  • Clear guideline should also be provided as to how much fund can be expected like the one for Uniswap.

I agree with your points on keeping the proposals mainly for critical changes only.

Proposals or voting for devs to deploy products onto the chain should be in a different page and be called something else like MVP program.

Just so you guys know, this is exactly what binance did. They keep it separated so actual devs know what proposals is for what.

Binance and other chains did it through hackathons and MVP programs where developers go toe to toe against each other and the top 3-5 winner will receive funding. This METHOD ensures that products are of extreme quality because they are competing for funding and not just any Tom, dick, or Harry can ask for funding in the future.

It totally makes sense. Delegators/Validators voting for products to be deployed should not be a thing, it should be reserved for critical proposals like chain support , parameter changes and so on.

Do check out binance mvp competition on twitter where developers sign up and showcase their product and the most beneficial to the blockchain or most innovative ideas get a chance to be shown to a group of experts/judges to get rated.


That would lead us to another choice : how will we use the EGF and the CSP ? What will be the discriminant ?
I agree the team can choose and select what the EGF proposals are for. But the CSP ?
Anyway, i think the small team of “wise people” elected for small projects is a very good Idea. But that still leaves us to the role of DAO. Maybe we can just forget about DAO for some months/years, until the ecosystem gets really decentralized. Or WE Can setup a simple process where public validators are being d legated at least 50% quorum, with team delegators able to vote against or with veto. This would need to be wisely calculated, so that the team Can express a veto (and actually, even express it before it’s submitted !!).

For example, let’s get a practical case…
We published a Java library on github, open-source, freely available.
But we’re also working hard on the TG and Discord bot, which will not be open-source. We’d love to work on other items as well…
We’d like to offer it to become open-source, and also to grow the Java library with web3 wallet connect to f(x)wallet. If we do this, we’d love to be able to propose it to be submitted for a 6-10k FX funding, and then to propose updated and upgrades every once in a while. What should we do ? Engage 10k and submit it to quorum ? Even 5k deposit would be nonsense. Thus, we need a mechanism for that. Most communities develop plugins, thanks to open-source github repositories.

I’ll try to work on a more detailed report soon to propose you sthg on this matter. But time’s missing… :wink:


Good question and a dilemma that needs to be tackled very carefully.

Just my thoughts:

Since, CSP fund is replenished on a timely basis, the bar can be set a little lower than EGF which is fixed.

When a project requests funding, they would have to make a choice between the two grants. The difference would be on how the votes are counted.

For the EGF, the outcome would be completely determined by the committee. So, if there are 10 members in the committee, 6 votes would be needed to pass proposals.

For the CSP, on the other hand, 35% would be automatically achieved if the community/validators deem it worthy. So, the project would need less experts to jump on board to pass the proposal.

The community should also be able to create funds from CSP to attract developers/experts to create projects. For instance, the community could put up a bounty of lets say 1000fx for each ported dapp. The developer who is successful gets the reward.

Again, this needs to be a completely different system from the current proposals. The grant for CSP would be lower. Lets say 10k max. So, to propose a project on CSP, the required fx could be equivalent to 300-500 USD. The main idea for CSP fund would be to boost the ecosystem as quickly as possible (temporarily for now).

I am mentioning “temporary” because we do have to realize the fact that although the project has definitely achieved more significant milestones than most other projects, we are still in a comparatively small community. The last time, I made a purchase of around 5k, the price shot up by almost 12% on the exchange. For DAO to be fully realized, it would take more time. What we need right now are guiding hands and visionaries who would accelerate growth.


Thanks @Richard for detailed explanation. Please find below my comments.

Agreed, grants can be always split across different stages of the project. Larger grants comes with bigger risks and disagreements.

Agreed. Maybe some community poll could be a good feedback for each project about details for quantifiable milestones.

I think Quorum limit is fair (and should retain), the problems is more about too many tokens bonded on validators which are not voting at all in order to stay neutral.
However to stay neutral, it’s enough they can vote to Abstain (as already mentioned) to reach the Quorum, then the rest of validators could have their final vote.
Another workaround could be posting a community poll on a forum which can influence the vote on behalf of team’s validators.

I could understand that other grant programs does that, however I think centralizing decentralized blockchain is always a bad idea.
Uniswap is a specific technology, and they’re focusing in specific areas. In our case it’s a decentralized blockchain and we’re talking about variety of different projects utilizing it.
So giving a power to 6 reviewers who decide on future of our projects could limit our overall potential, and can introduce further limitations, rules and regulations.

In Summary

Personally I think the current decentralized approach should work fine, all we need to do is to find the better and fair approach.

What are our current problems? The following posts should sumarize this (credits to @FrenchXCore):

So what we can do? Pick one (I’m pretty sure there are more solutions):

  1. Team’s validators can vote to Abstain to reach Quorum and be neutral at the same time. Most likely this won’t be possible as per Zac comment on the last discussion meeting.
  2. Team’s vote can be influenced based on a community poll on the forum.
  3. Team can appoint few validators which can vote and it can repeat the same vote based on majority on the last day (still neutral).
  4. Team can distribute team’s FX delegation evenly to validators which can vote. Pros? Quorum problem is solved. Cons? It’s understandable that team doesn’t want to risk, including slashing. So this can be based on some simple formula given the amount of non-team delegation, uptime and so on. But how bad it can be? 0.1% slash from being off-line from 2mln delegated per validator is just 2k (for each validator) and comparing it to the amount of deposits being lost it’s nothing.

I think the above approaches are much simpler to apply than changing the whole process, only because we’re not enough decentralized.

In summary, applying further centralization ideas to fix our decentralization issues could only do more harm than good.

1 Like

Voting on EGF should be responsibility of validators. By doing it, it makes them important part of the whole blockchain and community. They should feel excitement about new proposals and projects same as running the validator.
Otherwise if they can’t spent few minutes on voting (to run a single command) and at least half an hour for reading about the proposal, question is, why they decided to run a validator in the first place. As maintaining validator is time and resource consuming also (keeping everything running, stable and secure on daily basis, managing bills, upgrades, OS patching - CVE-2021-4034 anyone? and many other stuff).
If they won’t have time on voting due to personal life, that’s also fine, as far they maintain the stability of their validator to avoid any slashing. Either way, people naturally will move to other validators who vote more often (whatever the vote is) and are more active.
On the other hand, I assume maintaining a committee also comes with some costs. Obviously they’re not robots, and they will also have their day jobs as well. So same thing. And who’s going to oversee their work? What if validators won’t agree on their final votes?
With validators, we’re already know they’ve necessary technical knowledge to understand what’s being proposed from the technical point of view.


@kenorb raised very good points here, a committee goes against the DAO (it kinda contradicts the whole philosophy too), and what if validators don’t agree with the committees? DAOverse being the example here, most Public validators voted for it regardless of the sum (a one-off anomaly imo, it won’t repeat).

I think that most active members here in the forum will be reading and discussing about any upcoming proposals submitted tbh. Our user base in this forum will grow and we should seek ways to increase the members here, who can also contribute more insights.

Maybe if the community’s discussion here didn’t filter out the right questions to the proposer, the committee of experts (if assigned) can draft a pros and cons of any proposal, for all to decide, instead of making a final decision that can’t be over ruled (if such a thing is implemented).

The committees can help reduce admin work for fx core team staff, which in itself is a plus, by filtering out things of the proposition. The committee’s final summary of all pros and cons in this sense is good.

A side track thought and somewhat irreverent, is that maybe a system where it can show how many delegators voted under each validators could be useful… Even past proposals.

Not sure if a preliminary poll would be accurate, until if such a commission drafts all possible scenarios and a robust solution to poll accuracies.

Having said all this, it still comes down to the diligent supporters and validators.

In a way the committees functions is kinda filled up with supporters in this forum, which has shown through DAOverse, but with a little more guidelines would be better equipped. What other criterias does a committee instigate here anyways? If we can assess them, surely we can apply them to the proposer ourselves as a forum.

Future proposals will be entangled with more of the similar curiosities by this forum… It might be more, because so far the two proposals by the three long time supporters, existing in the eco already, outsiders imo may get even more questions. But that’s a good thing to filter out pros and cons.

Richard already highlighted major points to look out for in future proposals, and I think more can be added here, as we learn moving forward.

Any Proposals should include in details what these committees task is meant to be in the first place, that’s already 90% of the work done. So maybe if we have better questions set out and mandatorily outlined by the proposer, it will make the process much easier for everyone.

Team addresses should vote and even voice their opinions in this forum, which will be a good feedback already from experts, if they feel they can afford some time here and there, proposal do run for 2 weeks, plenty of time. I cannot see anyone not serious in this eco, esp as devs to ignore intentionally any future proposals. We are a massive committee already and everything is fine apart from who is going to vote or not from the team’s side.

Side suggestion, saying it as it comes to mind ; Maybe we can have a private group here for VC’s invite only, to view some of these proposals, maybe they can fund promising projects with their own risks, but using only fx otc deal, or off market buy lol…

What are the views from Function X Japan or Korea regarding governances? Would be good to hear.

I don’t think the quorum needs to be changed, 40% was a good number to start off with and most likely was a lengthy thoughtful discussion internally.

Maybe a short poll to see who will comment and assist the vetting proposals in the future, to get an idea moving forward. That data could be good.

DAOverse has prepared us for the best in many ways. It was a deep rooted project with lots of moving parts and detailed White Paper. In regards to time consumption spent was demanding but we still pulled through with the most active thread. It will be a task if another project can replicate this imo… If they do, its a win for us anyhow.

This leads me to think about categories, and what categories could pre-define fund caps, eg, metaverse 200k max, lottery game 50k, storage, Defi etc etc. Would not be difficult to determine, since the use case won’t vary as much as DAOverse in general compared to them, since daoverse included every single category, or the potential to do it at the very least.

If funding required exceeds max hard cap, a request needed to be made within the proposal and why.

Is this making the whole on-boarding process a tad difficult? yes it is but thats the point, free money shouldn’t be easy to get, and have to earn it and security of fx rugged is paramount.

So what’s the conclusion?
-carry on as it is imo
-team addresses vote
-company validators won’t vote
-Public validators must vote or slashed 0.1%
-Committee (optional) but not needed imo.
-Number of committees needed if so
-volunteers for committees, a dry run poll maybe
-larger committees already exist here
-clearer guidelines for proposals with mandated criterias
-categories can be done in a limited but adjustable way wrt fund caps
-More engaging outreach to 4 institution validators - update needed here for their views with voting, if slashed or not, best to abstain imo, also ensuring they’re aware what’s coming to the eco.

Can we do the next proposal better? yes I believe so with the last two experiences and better guided proposals presented to forum members.

Also before proposal is launched a week probation should be soft launched with preparations to get feedback from forum, before proposers make final proposal submission, that should be mandatory.

1 Like

Thank you @Richard for the excellent research on established grants out there, I strongly suggest anyone that wants to apply for proposals read Richard’s finding.

My Friday thoughts below:

While some have proposed a committee following Ethereum foundation/Web3/UniSwap model, @Superbit123 and @kenorb voiced concern that in true DAO fashion, proposals should NOT be filtered by committees, anyone should be able to submit proposals without hindrance, which I agree.

Perhaps a middle ground is to have a committee as guidance. In that way, anyone can still propose proposal, with or without the committee. The committee is the gatekeeper of X% quorum and consist of people for example from institutions Function X / Litecoin / BCC / ABI / EUC + engineers from our team to assess engineering feasibility and cost. If the committee gives greenlight, these institution validator will vote, increasing quorum. (ps: the insitutions are not told about this, it’s merely my idea and we need to speak to them). Right now those 3 to 4 validators control about 10% of voting power.

We are all here for the good of the ecosystem, and the natural tendency is to approve as many proposals as possible so FXCore have more transaction and use case, but we need also need to ask hard questions to proposals, such as the ability to execute, the amount asked, and whether if $fx given will just be dumped. Important questions with repercussions.

Finally the foundation have tasked @richard to put this guidelines to our own “proposal guidance” notes that can be used by the committee, whereby upcoming proposal have a structure to follow. namely the role of the commitee (cannot veto proposals, but can increase quorum), proposal of ~ $20,000 to $50,000 per grants on average, and capping at $100,000 at max, and other guidelines.


Adding to the whole discussion about amounts being requested for grants. The proposal submitting teams need to realize that the idea behind grants is to support a project, not build an empire using community funds and keeping 100% of the equity.

If a team wants to build an entire business using community funds, then the community should be an equity owner, just like angle investors in a startup!


The middle ground here with the committee is a sound idea.

I’ve also asked if Sahil would consider being a validator under ZelaaPayAE node.

Ive broken down for them few benefits of doing so and the merits for both projects.

1 Like

Interesting read. Fits nicely in here. It might be a good idea if we looked at other proposals that has passed and failed on other DAOs, to understand how best to formulate a good structure, (as best as possible) and thereafter take each proposals as they come diligently.

Unless we can think of a new way that has not been done before… And with that, it can bring great attention to fx governance.

We definitely need long lasting fair criterias esp when the eco grows and more requests are made, it will be a handful otherwise…

So I’ve thought of a fresh idea just now sort of thing. So it definitely needs polishing.

What if the team made a Dapp or Google form, I think it works better with a fx Dapp, to allow a preliminary (test run feedback on proposals) but structured a little different.

So for example all the questions are pre-defined (but room to add more by the feedback giver).

We can carefully craft the sets of questions. This can be used for complex or simple propositions. Also the questionnaire Dapp for any proposal, the user are required to give a score of 1 to 10 point, ten being excellent.

In the end a percentage score or rating is given. And this can be used by the proposer to get feedback where it’s strengths and weaknesses are, and where it scored low. This is good because not everyone is fully engaged or won’t comment what they think. Incentives can be given to fill in the feedback form, this can be tied to your fx address. Over time the questions can be more accurate and more of the communities learn along the way.

So the questions are like this;

  1. does the proposer have a wp, if so rate it
  2. do they have any credentials or previous Dapps?
  3. do they have a roadmap (if so rate it, no is 1 point)
  4. Is it viable to produce the product/s with the funds requested?
  5. Is the use case good for fx, Pundi or purse?

Total number of feedbackers can be shown transparently and a system is built surrounding this simple Dapp.

In the future this FX-Score can be published (tweeted, medium article etc) for the not so active dao members and a quick infograph results showing all the detailed votes from each questions or categories (depending on how this is setup) and users are able to vote without having to read too deep into a proposal project.

So in short, all this is a bonus for the eco, the community long term and dao proposals. This won’t be the final vote of course but a good indication of it.

Because reading through all the comments and assessing the pros and cons is time consuming, and if, when fx is successful and many prospects come through, no one will be able to keep up…

Also if a committee (professionals) entered their questions within the Dapp for us to fill in as well, even better, we just need to know the questions.

The institutes can use this fx dao score.

I am actually surprised a website ain’t already created with many professionals giving out these scores with a fee submission, and bringing this back to projects, such as certix audit for example.

Maybe if all the committees met up lol. Anyways just an :bulb: please brainstorm if it’s worth it or not. It might be much easier moving ahead in the future.


1 Like

a lot of good ideas discussed here.

Firstly, I agree with @Riz_Truth with regards to staying status quo with regards to the quorum. Lowering it now might allow whales to take advantage of our system.
Secondly, taking into consideration segregating proposals for EGF as @SCENE mentioned
Thirdly, there will be a workaround proposal for EGF requests @kenorb @FrenchXCore and I think a full DAO concept is still a bit premature for now until we have laid the necessary groundwork like have greater distribution of FX in the network.
Lastly, once we have a clearer proposal plan, it will be shared with the community. So do stay tuned! Then you can get your hands dirty and provide feedback for it as you suggested @Superbit123

With that I will be drafting a proposal soon with

  • clear guidelines
  • tiered amounts and requirements
  • milestone requirements & roadmap

So do stay tuned!


Governance Proposal & Request for Funds

Hi everyone, we have decided on a proposal that will still achieve decentralization and address the issues raised by the community in light of the recent Daoverse proposal.

Kindly take a look at this proposal which has a clear set of guidelines, financial support tiers, categorization and process flow.

For those who have already made proposals before, and those who are intending to request for funds from the EGF, I would like to invite you to take a look at the guidelines now for us to gather feedback. @kenorb @Alchimist @KuzoIV @Fox_Coin.

Would love for the rest to take a look as well @FrenchXCore @Superbit123 @ClaudioxBarros @SCENE @Riz_Truth @cop4200. We welcome all feedback and comments. The googledocs allows for comments so do use a name that we can identify you by and leave a comment!


Looks good Rochard. I don’t see any mention of the proposal deposit fee for any of the tiers?

That’s a great document…
It’s gonna take time to propose corrections, comments, etc. But I’ll do my best.


Thanks for wrapping up most of the points in there :white_check_mark:

There is a huge difference between current and the upcoming EGF guidelines :handshake:t4:which is mandatory point.

Hi Richard, just went through it this evening. And replying as I read the guide. I generally work this way (my first raw impressions as i read and type) and any further findings, errors, ideas, etc , I’ll post again :face_with_thermometer:. So far so good.

  1. The techinical interview stood out for me immediately. This is a very good of getting to the nitty gritty of things quickly, can assess authenticities and a general elaboration of the proposal depths.

  2. The amount requested per milestone is another positive imo. It will bring about more clarity for all DAO members. This can also make proposers think about their respective responsibilities.

I suppose they will have to write, the next 3 months, is the same as before, under each month, if their project is not able to implement anything per month/milestone.

  1. How will dao members know and keep up with what is to be released?
  • and when and if they meet their targets or not?

a) Maybe having a mandatory updates from project Milestones achieved.

b) This could be a check box system with their milestone roadmap (and a short description of that milestone, and funds associated with it.

c) It would be easier to keep track of each project/s and funds released per check box.

d) Maybe a reminder per report the total needed, and given to date status.

e) Or perhaps we can tie these infos under fx explorer under their tab eg #9 proposal. Like a milestone tracker.

f) Or maybe have a new category on fx explorer under active proposals. With their roadmap…This way new & old people diving into the fx space, can see what’s truely happening with fx egf/eco and where the eco is heading in terms of incoming features but significantly usecases of $fx. I can extend this point, but I feel we get the idea here.

  1. I agree strongly with everything in your point #8. This is very important and a key driver to pass rates imo.

  2. Proposal guidelines, could be on the fx explorer, and when new criterias are added (and we learn more ahead, it’s already updated) and has to be meet best as possible…

  3. I think its a clever idea to have scout/or as you called them internal developers with 5% vote power, with total 15%.

a) will these internal developers final decision ever be made public?

b) or also with the final commission’s findings together, before the general dao public go to make a vote?

c) also not defined yet, but what does the committee hold or is that something that not applicable in vote powers?

d) so let say a project gets 10% vote from 2 internal developers, please break down what are the following processes, ie committees thereafter. So what I am trying to say is that, what do dao members/validators see in the end process before they pass their vote? does it turn up with a 10% of 40 of the total quorum to our hands? (max 15%)

  1. A badge system kinda, qualified devs & committees approve the pass badge, that’s a good thing and not negating the entire fundamentals of a dao system.