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

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.

Hi @Richard !

Went all over it, and proposed a lot of editorial modifications, and some more to complete the document.
But it seems my write-access rights were removed before I was eventually done.
Beside adding information about the proposal deposits, it would also be nice, in the inquiry form, to add some question related to the proposer’s will to share any of the personal info. Or maybe to split the “personal info” in two parts : one part with just a pseudo on this forum, one part with all the personal info.



This is definitely the right step to project proposals. Everything seems to be defined (which I very much like) and clearly communicates what is expected from the proposer while cleverly drawing a line on what can be expected from the team/fund.

I think a bit more could be added with regards to the budget and projects that need minimal but continuous funding.

will make those amendments suggested by the community. once ive made all the amendments, that will be the alpha version so do let me know if there are any other changes needed. Have added to the public monday board as item #11

and also what do you all think about

  1. lowering the initial deposit amount to say 1K and total deposit amount to 3K for all other proposals
  2. for EGF, was thinking of lowering the deposit amount to 1K and 10% of whatever is requested.
  • so if you are requesting for anything up till 10K, you will just need the initial deposit.

  • beyond that, say you are requesting 100K, you will need a total of 10K. (if quite a number of you agree, then we will do some research in making this happen)

  • this ensures that there is enough community support if the proposer does not have enough funding.

  • and also ensures that proposers will give a bit more thought about how much they actually need.

  • the more you request for, the more FX you will need to have. this ensures stability of the system and prevents outsiders who are not part of the network to come in and game the system.

good points raised @Superbit123. idea is to put this on our github and let any proposer fork it. that way everything is transparent and available online. in terms of tracking, idea again is to put it on github to track the milestones and to share the repo of the proposer.


Let’s discuss these proposed changes in two days time at our upcoming all-hands.


Hi Richard

From what I understand, the proposers would still need to deposit fx to get the funding. Hoped the committee would make the final decision but I do understand the need for it.

Just my thoughts:


  1. Instead of losing their deposit, why don’t we lock up the deposited fx for a certain time period if the proposal fails
    – i.e. if deposit was 10,000 fx, the proposer loses 10% (1000 fx) and 90% (9000 fx) gets locked.

  2. Locked deposit would be released after 6-9 months in stages. Lets say, 50% on month 6 and the rest on month 9.

  3. While locked, fx will be delegated to a company validator and the rewards would be used to replenish EGF/CSP/OTHERS.

  4. If my calculations are correct, the rejected proposal would generate approximately [(4x180)+(4x270)] at current rate which is 1800 fx. Add to that another 1000 fx from lost deposit which would provide a total of 2800 fx into the pool.
    – I was hoping if the team would set up a centralized marketing committee/team dedicated for reddit/fb/twitter/youtube ads.
    – They could use these funds to boost posts from the community [like this one: (f(x)Variable Video!)] and create interest. With the funding, it can reach 10-100x more people.
    – The community could vote on the forum every quarter to decide which platforms the marketing team/committee would mainly focus on with regards to these funds.

  5. The reason behind locking up fx and not taking all of it from the proposer would be to encourage more participation while also ensuring that penalties are in place to filter out lowest quality proposals.


While studying the team’s studies of the other grants in the market, it’s clear that the average asking portion is $25,000 to $40,000. Even when the space has grown considerably but we also need to account for Ethereum Foundation size from the beginning, and they have only given Uniswap a major successful project $120,000 worth and others less than half of that.

I’d like to ask sensible applicants to go with this range, and ask for more when you complete it. I also want people to be sensible, if you simply vote yes a $1,000,000 request you are doing a deservice to us all. I would be very worried if proposals get $1,000,000 based on passion and a great whitepaper. I will vote with more caution with now on.

From what I understand, most institutional validators like Litecoin have a day job and I know institutional validators in other chains also most have a hands off mentality and they usually only vote on commission rate changes ala things that affect their profit. I think this is also sensible. If institutions vote it is great, but if they don’t I think we cannot forcefully on them.


Well said @SiverSurfer. anyways i will proceed to move #11 to the launch log. i think the structure and necessary documents are all already in place. you can view it here.


i have made some amendments to the team committee voting. instead of each committee member having 5% of the network, we’ll keep it simple and have the top 3 team validators vote. this will also reflect the composition of the network too. so in the future, as we become more decentralized, the team’s voting power will decrease which is our eventual goal


@Richard can I ask. To my understanding you are the person behind the Blindgotchi validator? Correct?
If so is your blindgotchi validator vote considered as team vote or independent vote?

I thought it’s @Chee_Keat_Lim the one behind blindgotchi :eyes:

It’s Richard. I remember that info well when he first introduced the validators setup video.

Oh :eyes: okay :+1:t3::+1:t3:haha am outdated then :laughing:.

yes @Chee_Keat_Lim and I are jointly managing the blindgotchi validator and the decisions made are independent of the foundation