FGP: FORTH Community Grants Program

Sorry my mistake, I was referring to reviewers. I think calculating it this way for the lead role is fine.

I believe it was mentioned to be a 4/5 multisig earlier which means 4 out of the 5 reviewers must approve the grant for it to go through. See:

My comment is assuming we add a 5th reviewer and remove the lead from the reviewer role.

I’m very much in favor of this proposal and would like to thank @Guz_MassAdoption for all the work out into this!

On the other side, I agree that the current snapshot vote does not yet incorporate enough community feedback and will therefore vote with no.

However, I am optimistic that we will work out the outstanding points and am looking forwards to further discussion and a new snapshot vote.

Many thanks to all participants in this discussion! I think we are on the right track :four_leaf_clover:

4 Likes

It’d be remiss of me to mention and applaud the incredible amount of diligence, effort, and scrutiny exhibited for this proposal. This said, please allow this reply to serve as a working amendment that - once met with consensus amongst community members - will be applied to the original proposal (showed above).

Amendments

  1. FGC Members
    We can vote on the expansion in the number of reviewers a part of the FGC (taking into consideration the inclusion of @ducc as a reviewer). The two available options are (as proposed by @Fiddlekins - but with some minor adjustments):

A. 1 Lead & 5 Reviewers

  • The lead is responsible for analyzing and presenting the proposal material to the reviewers to decide & deliberate on.
  • The lead and the reviewers all hold a spot on the, now, 6 person strong multisig

B. 1 Lead & 6 Reviewers

  • Once again the lead is responsible for preparing the material for the reviewers to form their
  • opinion on.
  • However the multisig is controlled by the 6 reviewers alone, with the lead having no direct vote on the matter.

All members of the FGC must introduce themselves using the template provided below:

  • Ethereum Address (provide the one you will be using for the Multi-Sig):
  • Discord Handle:
  • Twitter Handle (optional):
  • Statement of Intention
    • This includes your values, vision, and reasoning behind why you want to be a part of the FGC:
  • Web3 Qualifications / Skills (optional):
  1. Compensation
  • Reviewers will not be compensated in the FORTH Grants Program.
  • The Lead will be compensated per the model proposed by @Fiddlekins (see below).
  1. Multi-Sig

The Multi-Sig is controlled by the Reviewers operating with a 4/5 or 5/6 signing threshold depending on the outcome of FGC membership.

  1. Final Comments

It is the FGC’s objective to operate in full transparency with the FORTH DAO community. This said, the FGC must do the following:

A. Hold all conversations via a visible channel within the Discord’s Ampleforth server.

B. Publish monthly reports mentioning: (1) Amount of funds disbursed, (2) Applications approved, (3) Description of Grantee projects, (4) KPI tracking.

C. Hold monthly twitter space events allowing grantees the opportunity to showcase their project, discuss the intentions behind applying for a FORTH Grant, and the roadmap associated with the project moving forward. These events will be recorded and shared in a dedicated #ForthDAO section within the Ampleforth discord.

2 Likes

@ducc @Brandon @Pricelessjohn @Nestor @richy please give everyone a quick intro. using the template below:

I’m a bit confused, what’s the argument in favour of the multisig being 6 people? I thought the standard practise was an odd number to ensure no ties, and I don’t recall seeing anyone argue otherwise in this thread.

I’m personally still in favour of the following option, which isn’t represented in the poll:
1 Lead & 5 Reviewers, the multisig is just the 5 reviewers, the lead doesn’t vote.

I don’t think anyone’s discussed it but is there any opposition to adding what I discussed about Reviewers have gas costs reimbursed by the treasury?

@Fiddlekins the addition is with the inclusion of @ducc being a part of the committee.

Do you know if it’s possible to conduct these on a section of the forum that only FGCP members can post in? Discord’s a decent option, but there’s still an account registration barrier to viewing any content on it, whereas the forum can be read freely by anyone with a browser and an internet connection.

I’m actually in favor with this suggestion.

Curious to hear everyone’s thoughts.

1 Like

Okay, well here’s how I would restructure the poll to include my preferred option as a third option. The first two are what I understand A and B to mean in the poll you posted.

  • A) 1 Lead, 5 Reviewers. Multisig is 6 strong in total: 5 Reviewers & 1 Lead
  • B) 1 Lead, 6 Reviewers. Multisig is just 6 Reviewers
  • C) 1 Lead, 5 Reviewers. Multisig is just 5 Reviewers

0 voters

EDIT:
voting reorders the options, so added letters to clarify them

1 Like

Awesome! Thanks for spinning this up!

I have deleted the original poll as we will prioritize this new poll as the primary tally.

Let’s keep this poll open for 48 hours before proceeding with a Signal vote.

Hey I’m ducc. You may know me from such works as: this forum, discord, and telegram. I’ve been an active poster in the AMPL community since late 2019.
0x0ddC3Eaf066b2C46B154A2e368e83c37CDE67665 (Fresh wallet)
Discord: ducc#7344
I don’t have a twitter account.

Statement of Intention:
I’m a strong believer that people are only as good as their incentives. Current monetary systems create perverse incentives for those who control its creation. AMPL is the closest thing to a perfect form of money that has ever been created, and its mass adoption could radically improve the way we relate to one another economically. As such, I’d like to be a member of the FGC to ensure that it protects the core values of AMPL which I view as:

  1. Decentralization
  2. Censorship resistance
  3. Non-dilutive monetary policy
  4. Freedom from market manipulation (including by the Forth DAO itself)
  5. Accessibility for all (maintaining options for low-fee AMPL transactions)
  6. Utility (responding to true market demands for financial instruments)

I tend to be critical of radical changes to Ampleforth at the protocol level because the protocol has proven itself time and time again and one shouldn’t “fix what ain’t broke.” However, I am also a strong believer in entrepreneurship and the Forth DAO now has a unique opportunity to fund the creation of new DeFi protocols and derivatives to build the elastic stack and propel AMPL to its rightful place as DeFi’s unit of account. As a reviewer, I will support projects which create utility for all AMPL users and drive true market demand for AMPL. I will also not be afraid to criticize proposals which I believe are designed for the self-interest of the creators at the expense of AMPL holders.

As for my Web3/technical skills, I’m not much of a web developer but I’m a molecular biologist by trade and I do professional statistics, modeling, and data science, mostly in R and Python. I have well-developed critical thinking skills from being intellectually bullied by scientists a lot smarter than me. You may have seen some of my data visualizations on the Tellor oracle proposal or the Sigmoid rebase proposals here, and on discord. I’m a big proponent of using objective data to inform decisions.

10 Likes

Gas :fuelpump::

+1 On the subsidizing for the gas fees, this should not be forgotten. We wouldn’t want someone NOT to vote because they have to decide between feeding their child or voting for a potential moonshot project. Why not both?

Consensus :handshake::
Just a side note for about simple majority:

I think the project has to have an umph or be very well presented to pass the smell of at least four members instead of just 3.

Is it safe to assume that the KPIs of the program are somewhat also synonymous with the KPIs of The Lead? What will be the exact “job description” for The Lead?

1 Like

One aspect of this whole process that I haven’t seen addressed is how reviewers and the lead should respond to any potential DMs from those seeking grants. Given that social media accounts will be publicly available I think it’s reasonable to assume that some grant proposers might feel the temptation to “slide in the DMs” and try to convince committee members away from public view. Is it reasonable to ask the committee members to share these types of DMs if they receive them, for the sake of transparency?

Edit: grammar.

1 Like
  • Ethereum Address:
    brandoniles.eth (0xb9259aeEdF68948647bE301844174F5E249c2948)

  • Discord Handle: Brandon | Ampleforth#3382

  • Twitter Handle: @brandoniles

  • Statement of Intention

If you don’t know me (hi), I’m one of the authors of the Ampleforth whitepaper and a core dev of the protocol. I’ve been working on the project since when it started in 2018. I associated myself pretty closely with what I call the “first wave of defi”–my interest in the space stemmed originally from my experiences living through the 08 financial crisis, with the idea that perhaps there could be a system that’s somehow safer, more resilient, and more transparent. I believe AMPL is an important building block for this next financial stack. However, for its value to be fully unlocked, it needs a vibrant and diverse supporting ecosystem made from disparate groups. The FGC can be instrumental in further accelerating the development of this surrounding ecosystem.

As a member of the first cohort of the FGC, I plan to offer my technical background for advice to reviewers, to help assess technical feasibility and scope, but to otherwise take a light touch. I want to leave room for those outside the core development team to have a say in the direction of the grants and surrounding ecosystem. I am also happy to make introductions to any interesting groups I meet along the way to help increase the flow of proposals.

2 Likes

A bit over 48 hours, I’ve closed this poll now. It doesn’t appear to be particularly contentious so I think we’re good to update the proposal draft in accordance with it.

3 Likes

Hi All - please see my FORTH CGP nomination information below, I’ve been following the conversation and am on board with the decisions made (e.g., foregoing comp, adding ducc, etc).

Ethereum Address: 0x020e3BAB43C5e1bC5116bD13fF0ca012f15D32E3 (or 0xqwow.eth)
Discord Handle: Richy#3753
Twitter Handle: @richy_qiao
Statement of Intention
Hi everyone - for those of you who don’t know me, my name’s Richy - I was the first business hire for Ampleforth, joining the team in late '18/early '19. Prior to Ampleforth, I was a strategy consultant in the financial services and also spent time as an investor at a crypto hf/vc fund. During my time at Ampleforth, I led many of the non-technical initiatives. In late 2021, I transitioned to an advisor role and moved on to coinbase, Even more recently, I’ve joined a CeDeFi startup, Seashell, to lead Strategy + Crypto initiatives.

I joined crypto in late 2017 because I believed in the spirit of decentralization, access and optionality for all. I have also come to value community action as an important heartbeat of any decentralized crypto project. In terms of Ampleforth, I was immediately drawn to it in 2018 because of its roots in economic thought. Ampleforth remains the originator of rebase, the most robust algorithmic “building block” (i.e. longest lifespan) and continues to have a high ceiling within DeFi. I believe the FORTH CGP will go a long way to continuing to unlock this potential and engage the community.

Based on my time and experience in crypto, I hope to act as a “network node” - connecting other projects/communities/individuals and educating others about the program. Also, with my background in investing+operating, I hope to help in evaluating the potential of early stage teams and projects & give them practical operational advice. I take it as a serious sign of belief and responsibility to be in the first CGP cohort, as we may set the tone, culture and direction for others to come. I would like to set a culture around openness and collaboration, as I believe the community should begin taking more and more active steps to be involved in the future of the project.

Cheers

8 Likes

Ethereum Address: 0x2Ab27CE797b95030650B3369Edb850C14f017426
Discord Handle: Nestor#8357
Twitter Handle: @lifeofcrypto

Statement of Intention

Hey Everyone - Nestor here:

I value what the AMPL team has created and their focus around first principles and UNIX like philosophies. This is what attracts builders to participate in this unique elastic ecosystem. I also value all the contributors in this community that see the future of what a better monetary system can look like.

Frankly AMPL has “had it’s hand tied behind it’s back” for the last 2 years due to the novel rebase function. AMPL needs a healthy ecosystem of elastic primitives and protocols to succeed and to me this can only be achieved with a mindset of abundance over scarcity. My hope is FORTH & FGC unlocks this abundance and we can empower builders to grow and sustain.

If approved as a reviewer i’ll be a voice focused on AMPL ecosystem/community growth. I will support projects which grow the use of AMPL and will keep the interest of AMPL holders and the core mission in creating an AMPL liquidity layer at heart. In my view AMPL should be everywhere.

If you are not generally on twitter or discord - I started https://twitter.com/amplcast to host twitter spaces for the AMPL community of which there have been seven recorded episodes highlighting AMPL projects and initiatives, the goal to add another medium for people to digest the discussions from the discord/telegram groups.

7 Likes

Considering current market conditions, I propose we delay this proposal until at least SPOT launches and instead solidify our process around on chain voting for project proposals. It’s hard to find good parameters to use for faster grants given current volatility, and issuing tokens in this way will provide more downwards price pressure. I think until the market cap of Forth grows, which I strongly believe it will as the Hourglass team makes progress and SPOT is released, we can revisit this. At current prices I don’t believe we need to deploy capital as fast as possible, and instead should be selective with which projects we fund using on chain voting and wait for infrastructure like Hourglass bonds for funding initiatives instead of taking more risks with a faster approval process. Doing things like lowering the proposal threshold can enable more proposals if we want them and if we trust the individuals above, they can post their voting wallet and we can delegate to them.

3 Likes

This is a fair proposal! However, I don’t think the current market conditions should hinder the progress for the Grant Program - we should still stimulate & support projects that continue to build.

I do agree that capital deployment should not be done in expeditious manner rather the contrary - diligently, judiciously, and as effectively as possible.

In terms of (re)-funding the Grants Program, a proposal could be submitted for the community to vote on when the time comes. Hopefully if the proposal threshold is decreased we’ll see more proposals come through (agreeing with your latter-mentioned point).

As an update on the Grants Program Proposal:

I will add the agreed upon amendments along with the voted on Multi-Sig modification. This can be expected to be done by EOD, tomorrow afternoon the latest.

I’ll keep everyone posted via the #Governance channel.

2 Likes