Draft ideas for a retroactive grant program for the Eco Protocol community. Open discussion and gathering feedback

With this post, we are starting an open discussion among the Eco Protocol community on the topic of creating an incentive program for active community members and teams that bring benefits, and value and create tools for protocol development. Please review the draft and contribute your ideas if you feel it is necessary. Let’s allow 15 days for feedback and discussion, after which we will continue to move toward implementation with the ideas that are submitted.

These ideas came up and were discussed (between Layer 3 members and the Eco Association) a few weeks before Ryne’s post was published, so while we understand some of the uncertainty surrounding ECOx in the future and its tokenomics, we could discuss more of the structural ideas and only partially the numbers.

Draft ideas:

ihar: The program will take place every 12-14 months and will allow any active community member (or team) who has benefited the community, protocol, or ECO token, in any quality way, to be compensated for their contribution in ECOx tokens. One can only apply for a contribution that has not been compensated in any other way/method before. Applications will be accepted for a month.

Dave’s comment: we could run this on a 6-month distribution schedule with an open-ended application process. (i.e. applicants will be added to the next upcoming cohort). Also, is there a specific reason for having application windows?

Submission process:

  1. Any member (or team) of the community sends a detailed report on his/her contribution, wherein a free form he/she indicates all the most important things that were done, as well as any additional information that he/she considers necessary to show a full picture of his/her participation and the benefits that were brought. This report could be sent to the Eco forum. The applicant indicates the desired amount of the retroactive grant based on their report, ranging from 0 to 125,000 ECOx.

Dave’s comment: Should there be some structure or framework to the application process in order to make it easier to evaluate both individually and against other projects? Free-form applications may lend themselves to a wide variety of formats and make it much more difficult to assess equitably.
Also, is the reason for the 125k max to align with Trustee maximum compensation? I’m wondering if this is necessary? Perhaps more appropriate is a minimum compensation request…we wouldn’t want the assessment panel getting bogged down with a large number of very small requests.

  1. Next, a pre-selected group of the most active community members from the past 12-14 months gives their score to each application (not necessarily as a group, individually). Through their feedback, they will seek to assess the adequacy of the request for the report provided. Also, because they have been the most active participants in the community over the past 12-14 months, they can better understand many of the behind-the-scenes aspects and perhaps better assess the impact of each applicant on the overall growth and development of the protocol and community and better assess the adequacy of the request within the range of 0 to 125,000 ECOx. They can make their assessment publicly (on the Eco forum) or privately - directly to the Eco Association members.

Dave’s comment: what constitutes ‘most active community members’ definitely needs to be better understood here. I think at first the proposal is to have the Association assign this group?
Also, this is similar to the Optimism badgeholder structure which is great, Annika is a member and can most likely give a lot of insight into what is working and what can be improved with this structure. Probably want to have a semi-regular schedule of calls with the group to discuss and debate projects as well.

ihar: There are different ways of selecting participants for this group, but assuming that they should be the most active members of the community, they should probably be nominated by the association itself, simply by asking them to participate in the evaluation. Their purpose in this case would simply be to assist the Eco Association in making a final decision. To be both an additional support and validators of the Association’s decisions.

Dave’s comment: good short-term but less than ideal long-term solution.

ihar: Each year it can be different people (from among the most active) and the number depends only on how much the Association would like to decentralize its own decisions.

Dave’s comment: so the assumption is that the group changes every 12 months?

  1. The final part of the process is for the Eco Association to give a verdict on each application and say to what extent it will grant the original request. Retroactive grants issued will be subject to a vesting period of 12 months with monthly unlocks. Grants less than 5K ECOx could be issued without vesting.

Dave’s comment: it may be better form to have the group determine allocations and have the Association either approve or veto the allocation. Ideally, the Association would always approve and only use the veto in case of serious misalignment. This makes the Association a ‘safety stop’ rather than the primary determining body for reward allocation.

ihar: Some additional observations: the evaluation will likely be based on the applications submitted. That is, there will be a few of the most active members (or teams) of the community who have had the most impact and contributed the most - and, unwittingly, other submissions will be compared to those submissions. Accordingly, the grants given out will depend on what kind of applications are submitted each year.

Dave’s comment: Optimism is getting more specific about the types of grants that are being funded, while I don’t think that will work for us at this time I do believe that each applicant should be judged on its own merit and not within the context of the ‘cohort’ of applications for a given cycle. For example, if 10 sub-par applications came in for 1 cycle, I would assume that all of them would be denied, rather than choosing the ‘best of the worst’ and assigning that application a reward. Conversely, if 10 incredible submissions were put forward for 1 cohort, I would not assume the ‘worst of the best’ would receive a lesser reward simply because it was submitted during a particularly robust cycle. That said, there will of course be a human element to the judging process and some of this cannot be avoided, but we should recognize it and do our best to be aware of and minimize this effect to the extent possible.

ihar: Social media coverage of such a program is essential. If new members of the community can openly see the reports of those who have received retro-grants, the size of the retro-grant, and understand the direction of their efforts, it seems to encourage an influx of new active community members.

Dave’s comment: Agree 100% with this, we should interview winners and applicants, support them on our social streams and amplify anyone building on Eco.

ihar: In my opinion, the most important thing in this process is the applicant’s initial report, a lot will depend on it. And also the applicant’s initial request within the 0-125,000 ECOx range.

Dave’s comment: Agree, I think supporting the applicant via a clear expectations, submission process and format + live support in the community is the best way to make sure applicants are 'set up for success’.

5 Likes

I like the idea of the retroactive grants, but i would like to see the final decision of a grant lay in the hands of the team instead of the community and i don’t know if grants without a vesting are possible looking at Eco being from the USA.

2 Likes

I think that retroactive grants will attract new active members of the community, and this will have a positive impact on eco in the future.

3 Likes

Hi! Are you referring to the idea of giving small grants such as the 5K ECOx without vesting? I think it’s possible since the Eco Association is based in Switzerland, or maybe it doesn’t even matter…

Yes, initially I suggested something similar, because as it seems to me Eco Association sees the big picture and perspective better and therefore it should have the last word in the treasury disposition. However, Dave also offered another option:
Dave’s comment: it may be better form to have the group determine allocations and have the Association either approve or veto the allocation. Ideally, the Association would always approve and only use the veto in case of serious misalignment. This makes the Association a ‘safety stop’ rather than the primary determining body for reward allocation.

I like Dave’s comments

it may be better form to have the group determine allocations and have the Association either approve or veto the allocation. Ideally, the Association would always approve and only use the veto in case of serious misalignment. This makes the Association a ‘safety stop’ rather than the primary determining body for reward allocation.

Also, this is similar to the Optimism badgeholder structure which is great, Annika is a member and can most likely give a lot of insight into what is working and what can be improved with this structure.

These aspects can be deepened and developed, the only thing I now have doubts about is the “New Era”, we do not yet know the road map and what direction of development the association needs to continue the Eco path.

1 Like

Something similar was discussed in the autumn of last year. Does anyone remember the idea of the Retro Awards and how it all ended?

I support the suggestion that there needs to be a single application form; on the one hand this will limit the freedom of creativity, but more importantly it will create guidelines for what is expected, simplify the process now and set expectations for the content of future applications.

1 Like

Continuous quality contributions by key contributors should be rewarded which is why I support the general idea of introducing retroactive grants in the ecosystem.

I agree with Dave that having a veto for the foundation in place would be helpful.

2 Likes

thank you Ihar :ok_hand:
I support this idea, a grant system would increase interest in the project and attract contributors . I really like the grant system built in the Optimism ecosystem, to which we also belong to

1 Like

Hi @Dave_Eco, I will answer to some of your comments.

I don’t have any clear idea why 12-14 months. It seems to be the case historically in the Eco protocol to have these longer incentive time-frames… I guess a 6-month time frame makes more sense. Having application windows may help structure the process better, perhaps. So that there are fewer instances and the need to reapply within the same season?

Yeah, some kind of simple form would help structure the process.

Yes, more like that. To stay within the framework that had already developed in the Eco protocol before.

What minimum seems logical to you?

For me, the category of the most active is about 1) the consistency of participation in the life of the community in some highest form. A good example is attending all or almost all community calls (general ones) and sub-communities and subDAOs community calls like Layer 3 calls and Builders calls. 2) This is about initiatives and their implementation (say, Layer 3 proposals and other large community projects).

It is important to be evaluated by those who are doing important valuable things for the community, then they will better understand the efforts and value of the applicants, in my opinion. Depending on different criteria, it may be a narrower group of individuals, or it may be a broader…

Voluntary participation from those who would like to fulfill such a role + selection by the association according to some criteria listed above is probably important.

Perhaps to reduce the influence of the assessors on each other, it might be worthwhile to first conduct the first round of assessments without having calls, after which the results can be discussed and perhaps exchanged in one or two calls.

Given that from year to year the category of most active community members can change significantly - it seems logical to me that this group would consist of different members from year to year.

I envisioned it this way - the most important and first factor is the applicant’s self-assessment within the 0-125K range. Then the role of the assessment team is to assess the adequacy of the request based on their data (individually) and may underestimate or overestimate the request. Ideally, it is simply to confirm the adequacy of the request to the application. And thereby help the association form a final opinion. The association has the last word on this.

Yes, of course. In my opinion the more precise we try to be in evaluating applications for impact and quality - the more specific we become and the less we can find some common link in evaluating applications.

If there are any criteria in the evaluation - we become less sensitive to detail, compare applications more with each other and move more in the direction of equalization.

Ideally find a balance between the former and the latter.

2 Likes

really great to see this proposal moving forward, I appreciate the feedback on my comments in the original proposal document (see here)

While there are many details we’ll need to work through in building out this program (and I agree that we will have to settle some important design decisions regarding the coming protocol changes before we can implement anything) I believe in the long term a Retro Rewards process will play an important part of any future grants / RFP program we implement. So it’s great we are starting the conversation now.

@Dave_Eco
My assumption is that 1) any framework (boundaries) probably helps structure the process, it’s what we’ll rely on to make decisions 2) one way or another, but the resource to be allocated under any grant program is limited, and we want to set some limit on expectations and possibly create a competitive environment for a limited resource.

Makes sense?

At the same time, nothing prevents the Association from taking into account the very long first grant season (probably more than 14-15 months) and allocating at its discretion something on top to those applications that will be within the upper limit…

At the last Layer 3 and Dave (Eco Association) call, we concluded that the retroactive grants program in its full scope and form will be implemented around late Q3 to early Q4 2024. Probably the first implementation of the program aimed at incentivizing builders, projects and individual contributors will happen sometime after the full Eco protocol update. Probably Q4 2024 is a good target. Until then we will have enough time to prepare all the details.

2 Likes

Will there be any deadlines for submission, a single template.

(see here )`

Retroactive grants issued will be subject to a vesting period of 12 months with monthly unlocks. Grants less than 5K Ecox could be issued without vesting.
Making Connections: The Power of Contact by user131668168
New tab (notion.so)
Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.
Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.
Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.
Notion – The all-in-one workspace for your notes, tasks, wikis, and databases.
Please add to the file for reference: For future followers of the Governance Eco project, the estimated activity reward is approximately 5,000 EcoX, for what merits. Of course, project priorities may change. We wish everyone the best of luck. Jazz Band. :love_you_gesture: