Open robliou opened 1 year ago
EdgeDLT
commented
1 year ago I certainly agree it would be nice to have a milestone payout system built into the smart contract directly, but it's worth noting that in practice, a milestone system is already used.
Take the iOS SDK proposal for example, active under #29 and #54. The original proposal #18 requested all funds up front, breaking it up was encouraged for precisely the same reasons you are describing.
robliou
commented
1 year ago I certainly agree it would be nice to have a milestone payout system built into the smart contract directly, but it's worth noting that in practice, a milestone system is already used.
Take the iOS SDK proposal for example, active under #29 and #54. The original proposal #18 requested all funds up front, breaking it up was encouraged for precisely the same reasons you are describing.
@EdgeDLT , you make a good point. Splitting up the grants appears to be the right way to go. It's also worth noting that most of these grants aren't for very large amounts, so maybe it's not time-effective to nitpick on small details.
Background: If project is accepted following the voting/ quorum protocols, after the lockout period ends, 100% of the grant requested is released to the proposer before work has 'officially' begun.
Issue: Since funding is often a huge motivator for the project proposer (next to community reputation), if that aspect is removed by granting 100% of the proposal upfront, does it lead to the potential for a lower-quality project delivered? i.e. milestones not hit, project doesn't live up to what was proposed, etc.
Suggestion: As my project was just accepted, this is my first time going through this, however, I'm wondering would it be more appropriate to perhaps release 50-75% after lockout, with the remainder after project is completed (or milestones completed) and accepted by committee members? I understand this might introduce a further formal round of review and effort for the committee (or community), but it may lead to a proposer putting more effort in to ensure they deliver what was promised? This seems to be more in line with how the EcoBoost program works (though admittedly, long-term project monitoring can be quite time-intensive and hard to coordinate between multiple parties, and can also potentially lead to disputes between the proposer and committee, in my experience).
I do understand that the proposal and acceptance phase is also quite rigorous and that there will be some follow-up as the project milestones are completed. Also, many of the proposals that were accepted were made by parties that had an 'established' reputation in the community.