It would be great to have a sort of policy on the role of the community pool and what it should funds.
Lately we’ve been seeing an enormous amount of community spend proposals, where the spending is to be immediately dumped on the market.
Almost all proposals are related to the Cosmos Ecosystem, but many are actually not really directly beneficial for ATOM holders, and neither immediately related to the Cosmos Hub.
It would be great to have the community vote on the role of the community pool, what it should fund, what is it’s goal, so we don’t end-up as a charity, or as funding everything in the ecosystem (every Cosmos SDK chain have community pool too).
I think a public document, amendable by validators, the ICF, AIB and members of the community to draft a proposal like should happen.
This is very very necessary. @proto Thank you for riasing this issue. Without a solid community pool policy/rules this is getting ridiculas. As cosmos hub, we need to grow up, the community pool is several mil $ worth. Clear policy outlined what it is for, what it can and cannot fund is the minimum requirement. This will prevent most if not all the disharmony in the community about the spendings, makes clear to all what is to be expected and gives confidence the Cosmos hub is actually capable of professionally handling its finances.
This is a tough limbo. Because funding a project means you give that initiative the financial means to operate.
In the world nowadays we still need fiat. So funding in ATOM is not enough for the project to operate. So it is quite logical that the ATOM are sold in favor of fiat.
On the other hand, it also does not give a direct incentive to make the project a success. Because they have already gotten ATOM and converted to a stable/fiat. Introducing the need to keep a part in ATOM gives a nudge to make sure ATOM is successful as well.
This discussion is actualy an extention of prop #93 “Cosmos Hub Open Source Funding Policy” which passed and was overwhelmingly supported by the community. Clarifying what can and cannot be funded from the community pool will also prevent overlap between funding from the community pool and Cosmos foundation grants.
A community pool funding policy proposal can give guidelines for community pool spendings and if passed can be refereced in discussions about future requests for spending.
Just from the thoughts in my head I can come up with the following to start discussion:
Can be funded from community pool:
projects directly improving the cosmos hub
education projects about Cosmos/expositions/conventions
etc etc, please add more, make more detailed …
Can not be funded from community pool:
charity projects (wars/natural disasters/poverty), for a charity project, start a charity DAO or private project
projects/long term development that recieves grants from Cosmos foundation. If grants are needed but foundation non responsive, the way to go is: first make prop calling foundation to grant the funding. If that is passed it will be a very convincing wake up call for foundation to grant. This will prevent overlap between foundation grants and community pool spendings. If that doesnt help then I dont know if comm spent prop is the right way to go or not.
For this it would be very helpfull to have clear Cosmos foundation grants can/cannot fund guidelines. Then the community pool guidelinges can be complementary and not overlapping.
etc etc, please add more, more detail…
This is what I can come up with at the moment. Please discuss, add, comment, constructive critisism Also, if you think in general there is no need for a community pool funding policy or on the other hand a big need for it, or for example think that all Cosmos funding should be done through community pool spending props,
please also give your opinion.
edit* disclosure: I voted YES on the funding for Notional and Confio and did not vote on the Turkye charity proposals. To clarify: This discussion is GUIDELINES FOR FUTURE spending props, NOT to regurge past props/frustrations. Those have been decided by the community and that is that.
Think big, long term and have a broad mind. We all have a shared interest in the long term thriving and growing of the Cosmos hub.
I completely agree with you that having a clear policy on the role of the community pool and how its funds should be used would be extremely beneficial for the Cosmos ecosystem. With so many community spend proposals being put forward, it’s important to ensure that the funds are being used in a way that benefits ATOM holders and is directly related to the Cosmos Hub.
By having a clear set of guidelines and goals for the community pool, we can avoid the risk of becoming a charity and ensure that the funds are being used effectively to support the growth and development of the ecosystem. It’s also important to involve validators, the ICF, AIB, and other members of the community in the process of drafting this proposal, so that it truly reflects the needs and priorities of the Cosmos community.
Hey just so you know, I think that’s a really creative and interesting way to deal with the absolute dereliction of duty at the ICF concerning grants. When teams speak to me about Grant’s, I will recommend that they make a hub governance proposal requesting the ICF to review their grant. Thank you for that great idea.
Also, if you think in general there is no need for a community pool funding policy or on the other hand a big need for it, or for example think that all Cosmos funding should be done through community pool spending props,