Counter Proposal [SGP - 0003] Shimmer Growth Committee as part of the Tangle Ecosystem Association

Counter Proposal [SGP - 0003] Shimmer Growth Committee as part of the Tangle Ecosystem Association

A more Community Focused Shimmer Growth Committee

This Poll will be open and closes on Monday, 19 December, at 3 pm CET.

This counter proposal is written in accordance with [The Shimmer Governance Framework]

If you support this counter proposal to please vote for it in this Poll:

Do you support this counter-proposal to [SGP-0003] Shimmer Growth Committee as Part of the Tangle Ecosystem Association?
  • Yes, i support this counter-proposal to [SGP-0003] Shimmer Growth Committee as part of the Tangle Ecosystem Association]
  • No, I do not support this counter-proposal.

0 voters


A lot has changed in the past month or two.

Dominik Schiener’s original proposal to establish a Shimmer Growth Committee still provides a solid foundation for an important initiative and has been well received, but there are a few aspects of the proposal that could benefit the community and Shimmer further with minor alterations.

This counter proposal aims to build upon the original proposal for the Shimmer Growth Committee, but with a less ambiguous and more transparent initiative that utilises only 35% of the community treasury funds and supports a community focused committee comprising of four community members and one IF member.

We ask the community to decide on our proposal to:

  • Continue with the creation of the Shimmer Growth Committee as part of the Tangle Ecosystem Association but with four community representatives and one Foundation representative
  • To reduce the allocated financial commitment from 50% to 35% of the community treasury funds.
  • To follow an open and transparent process to disclose expenditure and resource allocation of community funds.


With the market in turmoil it is evident the community treasury requires some serious money management, and that optimised value can be achieved with the community funds. With the current proposal, albeit geared towards a quick spend for maximum value, it is somewhat ambiguous in its intentions, very Foundation oriented, and not focused on long-term community benefits.

With the IOTA Foundation receiving 10% of SMR supply under the form of the Tangle Ecosystem Association, it was expressed that these funds would be used towards exchange integrations, marketing, partnerships, and other opportunities, as well as now developer resources. It has also become apparent that 30% of these funds have already been allocated, with Dom sharing the basic IF financial status in Discord as containing only 7% of the Shimmer supply.

With an ever down trending market, long-term stability for the community treasury is of upmost importance, and an allocation of 50% of the token supply that could be hastily distributed could leave the community treasury very little for its long-term survival.

Alongside the financial implications of a 50% allocation, the current proposal is very ambiguous in its presentation and clearly favours an IF led committee that can heavily influence the outcome of the voting and the allocation of community treasury funds towards IF focused goals over community focused ones.

Our concerns with the current proposal are:

  1. It immediately leaves the community treasury with only 35% of funds by the end of the first year.

  2. It puts control of the allocated 50% in the hands of the TEA. Swiss legislation - the board of any Swiss Association have full control over underlying entities, committees, and member votes and decisions.

  3. It puts emphasis on IF influence and control, isolating the community from important decisions, such as marketing targets, goals, and partners – with Bitboy appearing three times in recent months, we can’t exactly say current marketing is on point.

  4. There is zero transparency or clarity into the actual targeting, allocation, accountability, and public disclosure of these funds.

The Proposal

The original proposal has merit and can work, but to focus on the interests of the community we propose to keep the premise of the original proposal, but with the following alterations:

  1. Reduce the fund allocation to 35% of the community treasury.
    50% of community funds are a lot to commit to an ambiguous and unclear initiative, a reduction to 35% would provide the community treasury a remaining 5% of the total Shimmer supply for the sustainability of the initiative as it formulates a structure and long-term financial model over the first year.

  2. Commit one IF employee and four community members to the committee
    This provides more focus on the community’s priorities and intentions over the foundations, whilst still providing IF expertise and inputs into the committee.

  3. Follow a clear proposal discussion structure and voting system
    Providing transparency on meetings and discussions between the IF representative and the community representatives, with IF and community members issuing proposed expenditures to the committee, followed by discussion and voting, with all meeting minutes recorded, and all decisions publicly released.

  4. Publish all decisions and expenditures in the public domain.
    Create an open section of the Governance forum where all decisions and meeting minutes are published for the community to see. Also open a transparency section on the forum where all expenses are published in the public domain.


The longevity of the community funds is of importance to support a sustainable long-term ecosystem for the future of Shimmer and IOTA. This requires the community to manage their allocated funds in a sustainable manner.

As is currently the case, 65% of the entire treasury has been allocated for use in the first 12 months, which does not offer any guaranteed long-term future for the initiative.

Second to this, as the current proposal presents a highly Foundation influenced committee, the actual control of these tokens lays more in the hands of the Foundation, rather than the community.

Dominik Schiener has said the aim of this initiative is to allow the IF to support and provide guidance and advice to the community with committee representatives. This counter proposal presents the opportunity for the IF to continue with this mission and still guide, advise, and support the community with a representative that can bring professional insights and proposals for potential avenues of marketing and other activities, but with the community voice being prominent in the final decision making.

Another concern, which has recently been heavily discussed within the community, is that of transparency. The current proposal does not present any guidelines for disclosure or accountability as to where these funds are being allocated.

To provide the community with a clear view of where the funds are going, it is important to add an accessible and open platform for transparency that the community can regularly observe, to understand where the allocated funds are going. Even with NDAs in place, there are certain levels of transparency that can be implemented without disclosing NDA specifics.


  • The committee will consist of 5 members, wherein four are voted in by the community and one is a member of the IOTA Foundation (Christian Saur or Holger Webel were proposed in Dominik Schiener’s original proposal). A community vote will select the Community members. For the selection, we will follow the processes currently underway for the Community Grant Committee member selection.

  • We propose the selected community lead and three elected grant reviewers with the highest vote counts in the selection process, alongside one IF representative, become the Shimmer Growth Committee.

  • These members will enter into service provider contracts with the Tangle Ecosystem Association.
    The Shimmer Growth Committee will identify high-impact growth proposals and engage in those opportunities with the key players in the DLT space. The IF will prepare specific proposals to use the funds committed to the Shimmer Growth Committee, and the committee will vote on whether to act on these measures.

  • All proposals that do not require NDA clearance will be made public, with expenditures to be publicly released without disclosing the protected specifics of these agreements.

The Committee

After the committee has been voted in, the community will permit the transferal of 35% of the current community treasury (~63,476,718 $SMR) to a unique wallet address under the control of the Tangle Ecosystem Association, to be available for the purposes of the Shimmer Growth Committee.

  • Every member of the committee will have one vote on every proposal.

  • A majority consensus (3 of 5 votes) must be achieved to approve or decline a proposal.

  • In the event of absence, or an abstained vote that leads to a tie (2 for, 2 against) the proposal will be declined, requiring a majority 3 out of 4 votes for approval.

  • Both the TEA and the Committee members may present proposals for consideration.

  • The TEA as an entity has ZERO voting or veto rights.

  • The TEA will commit to a contract with the community committee members that ensures they may not make use of or transfer any of the funds from the Shimmer Growth Committee Treasury without a confirmed vote in writing signed by at least three committee members.

  • The Shimmer Growth Committee will discuss all proposals in regularly defined meetings as outlined by, and coordinated by, the committee lead.

  • Every committee member will sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement outlining the specific NDA terms of disclosure pertaining to certain funding proposals.

  • Community delegates will be compensated for their work at a rate of $50 USD an hour with no more than 10 hours a week to be recorded per committee member.

  • The Committee will pay renumerations to community members from the Shimmer Growth Committee funds on a monthly basis via invoice, to be distributed in stable coin.

  • The TEA will pay all compensations for their committee representative out of TEA funds.

  • The initial term for the Shimmer Growth Committee is 12 months, any proposed extension of this period will result in a community vote.

  • Any tokens remaining in the Shimmer Growth Committee Fund at the end of the 12-month period will be immediately redistributed to the Community Treasury Fund.

  • Under no circumstance will the IOTA Foundation or Tangle Ecosystem Association make use of or apply for the use of the Growth Committee funds.


The aim of the funding is to support expansion and awareness of the Shimmer ecosystem and to gain further exposure for the Shimmer token and technology.

Primary allocations will focus on:

  • Marketing
  • Exchange listings
  • Public education surrounding shimmer
  • Partnerships
  • PR

Recording of proposals and expenditure

There are simple transparency processes that can be implemented to ensure all activities are clearly communicated to the community. A simple vote recording system can be shared after each meeting along with any minutes that do not disclose sensitive information.

Information included for transparency:

  • Vote number – a unique identifier for the vote in succession to all other votes, starting at V0001 and progressing sequentially.
  • Category – the topic of the proposal, such as marketing, promotions, partners, listings, etc.
  • Value – the value of the proposal in USD
  • For – total number of committee member votes for the proposal
  • Against – total number of committee member votes against the proposal
  • Outcome – either approved or disapproved

A basic vote record would be added to the public minutes shared in the community governance forum to contain the following (note: none of this transparency information would normally interfere with an NDA agreement):

Vote number Category Value ($USD) For Against Outcome
V0001 Marketing 50,000 3 2 Approved
V0002 Listings 75,000 2 3 Declined


The suggested Shimmer Growth Committee idea was born by Dominik Schiener to support the need of establishing an efficient and professionally managed growth strategy for the Shimmer ecosystem.(current proposal can be found here)

This proposal supports the vision of the original initiative yet builds upon the concept of providing a more community focused initiative that can better support the concerns and interests of the community treasury for long term sustainability.

The counter proposal presented here expands upon the professional establishment and support the IF can provide the community from the TEA, their network, and expertise, whilst also presenting the community with more control and transparency in the decision making for the initiative.

Having members of the community working alongside the IF and observing the ins and outs of the business side of things will still present a great opportunity in developing the community grant committee members with experience that can be used to improve and develop the Community Grant Proposal system.

We are confident the community will support this proposal as it builds upon the original proposal with a more community focused arrangement with long-term vision.


The following measures need to be taken:

  • The community need to determine the five members of the Community Grant Committee in a vote on Firefly
  • The final vote will proceed on the release of Firefly Shimmer that supports Governance Votes
  • The elected committee lead, and the three top committee reviewers will sign contracts with the Tangle Ecosystem Association
  • Constitutional first meeting of the Shimmer Growth Committee, where processes will be defined

Vote Name, question and answers, and optionally additional information


Counter Proposal [SGP - 0003] Shimmer Growth Committee as part of the Tangle Ecosystem Association


Do you support the setup of a more community focused Shimmer Growth Committee as part of the Tangle Ecosystem Association?

Answer 1:
• Yes, I support the setup of a more community focused Shimmer Growth Committee

Answer 2:
• No

Additional info:

  • Read the full proposal (link to the proposal)

  • Read Dom’s original proposal [SGP - 0003] Shimmer Growth Committee as part of the Tangle Ecosystem Association (link to the proposal)

Participation event of the proposal

    "name": "Counter Proposal [SGP - 0003] Shimmer Growth Committee as part of the Tangle Ecosystem Association"
    "milestoneIndexCommence": milestone number when "pre vote" starts,
    "milestoneIndexStart": milestone number when "counting starts",
    "milestoneIndexEnd": milestone number when "counting ends",
    "payload": {
        "type": 0,
        "questions": [
                "text": " Do you support the setup of a more community focused Shimmer Growth Committee as part of the Tangle Ecosystem Association?",
                "answers": [
                        "value": 1,
                        "text": " Yes, I support the setup of a more community focused Shimmer Growth Committee",
                        "additionalInfo": ""
                        "value": 2,
                        "text": " No",
                        "additionalInfo": "I don't want to implement the proposed change"
                "additionalInfo": ""
    "additionalInfo": " Read the full proposal  (link to the proposal)\\nRead Dom’s original proposal [SGP - 0003] Shimmer Growth Committee as part of the Tangle Ecosystem Association (link to Dom’s original proposal)"

Thanks for the proposal. Was a good read! I voted no mainly because of the following two reasons:

  1. I don’t think community members are necessary more qualified than IF member for this role. Everyone will vote in there best intrest and the way they think best. Community members will never be able to represent the entire community and thus do not provide a benifit over an IF member. Maybe even a negative because they are less involved in the current state of the project.

  2. I understand the caution of allocating 50% of the SMR supply, but proper invest early on has a much higher potential ROI than later. Additionally, any access SMR not allocated to projects will be returned. So if we have good committee member we could potentially only give out 35% of the supply instead of the whole 50%. I would rather they have the opportunity to fund all projects if there is a lot of applicants then that we aren’t able to fund good projects because we didn’t allocate enough funds.

I do like your proposal for transparency. Publishing the minutes of the meeting and results of the proposals is a good addition that I would like to see implemented into the proposal of Dom.


The support the IOTA Foundation is offering doesn’t waver with this proposal, it enforces Dom’s original vision, but the final decisions in regards to the allocation of the community funds remains with the community.

As for the allocation of 50% of the treasury, this is purely based on FOMO discussion. We are establishing a governance framework, which means voting. The lowering of the financial budget simply makes sense. With the additional 15% going to the community grant committee allocating 65% of the entire treasury in the first 12 months simply isn’t a sustainable solution, especially with zero revenue streams in place. At least, through this proposal, there will be a minimum of 50% of the Community Treasury left for the future of the community DAO, after the initial 12 months - which will be a reasonable amount of time for the community and committee to facilitate a long-term financial model for the DAO.

In the event the community feels the value of the Shimmer Growth Committee is warranted, in 6 months time a new proposal can be made to allocate further funds to the initiative - this won’t even affect the original allocation amount, but it gives us 6 months to see if things go as planned.

This isn’t something that needs to be aped into 100% immediately.

1 Like

Thank you for your counter-proposal!
I think measures like these are really important to keep the checks and balances of Iota’s governance intact. Especially in this early phase when sometimes fundamental decisions with great consequenzes are beeing made, there should be a healthy amount of opposition and supervision of proposals up for election.
Nonetheless I voted against this proposal. Apart from the good arguments made by the previous speaker, in my opinion and in face of the market’s uncertain condition it is simply not the right time to ignore the IF’s insight of the current situation and to oppose their plans for funding initiatives.


This proposal does not ignore the IFs inputs, it maintains the same system Dom propised, yet with the community representatives in control of the final decision making and where the community funds are invested.

The whole purpose of the original community DAO fund is to allow the community to have control and a long term initiative that can serve the community’s interests. Much like the TEA was granted the same amount to serve the IOTA Foundations interests.

This counter proposal simply puts in place a more community oriented initiative that takes into account the long term sustainability of the community DAO. With the original proposal the DAO will spend 65% of its entire treasury in the first 12 months. At least with these few minor changes there will be 50% of DAO funds remaining going into the next bull run.

1 Like

It makes one wonder why so many were (are?) in favour of the DAO in the first place, if it seems to be like the only argument against this proposal is: “IF knows better”. And hell I have wondered myself at some times why go through the whole thing with a DAO instead of just giving it to someone at IF to handle it.

While I won’t say this proposal closes all open issues I have with the original proposal, it seems to close most of them. I would have expected the community would have appreciated the additional transparancy and oversight proposed here. Since that is clearly not the case, I cannot help but wonder why the DAO, and especially a DAO with all the rules and regulations, in the first place.

And I want to pick this one out. Which plans are opposed by this proposal? Okay it reduces the total amount slightly, but nothing is opposed. Only a little bit more transparancy and community oversight of community funds are requested. That is something completely different than opposing the plans for funding. (Not to mention since IF still refuses to tell why they need half the community funds and not another amount, you can’t really call it a plan, it seems more like just a random amount).


Ok, I have to correct myself. You are right, „Ignore“ and „oppose“ were too strong words for what this proposal stands for and under other circumstances I (and I believe many others) would support it.
But I am concerned that we could be in a worse position for the future if the funding for certain IF-driven projects turns out to be less than the IF has in mind right now. In my opinion that would be a bigger problem than having to be more selective in funding of community-driven projects.
Sure, you need to trust the IF‘s insight and that they wont misuse the additional funding and influence. But a stronger financial standing of the community could also prove to be fruitless and apparently many community members prefer the first approach. We will see if this turns out to be the right decision.


The proposal put forward here supports this though. It continues to facilitate Doms proposal but with more transparency and lower funding. The funding can always be raised with a second bote later in the year if the community sees fit. But if all the funds are allocated immediately, we dont have this safety net.

The IF were gifted 10% of SMR tokens to support exactly what you are discussing also, and they have already allocated 30% of these in a couple of months. There is little reason to further endanger the future sustainability of the community DAO by immediately reducing the long term fund to just 35% of the initial total.

With this counter proposal we have the best of both. IF guidance and support, a reasonable budget, 50% of the community tokens safe for the future, and the ever open option to place additional funds into the Shimmer Growth Committee in the future, should it be deemed a wise use of funds by the community.


After reading the counter proposal and re-reading Dom’s original proposal I vote No to the counter proposal.

Although I see Improvement’s in the counter proposal regarding the transparency issue I don’t see the need for the 4 Community and 1 IF (at this moment in time.) we will still have community members with a seat at the table.

In Dom’s proposal I feel a sense of urgency to strike while the iron is hot. “Since Shimmer launched successfully, several promising opportunities have been brought to our attention. We believe that we must use these opportunities now to grow the adoption of Shimmer and its technology and advance its positioning in the market”

I believe the IF have their finger on the pulse, they are doing what they think is the best for the ecosystem and therefore the community. Possible opportunities could be in the pipeline (if funding is secured). If we reduce the initial funding to 35% it could negate the work they may have put in behind the scenes.

With the market the way it is right now these critical decisions could be the life or death of a project. I’m willing to put some trust in the efforts and expertise’s of the IF at this crucial time.


Now is the time to actually increase our allocation from the community treasury, and not decrease it. After this crash we have a serious opportunity to invest into developers, builders and dApps by giving them the right incentives to launch on Shimmer. Decreasing the treasury to 30% means that we can achieve half the things that we previously envisioned. None of them were related to “marketing” as you’ve positioned it as, but it was mainly around incentives for builders, developers and key partners to help grow Shimmer.

If that is how the community wants to succeed with Shimmer, then so be it. But it’s something everyone should be aware of.


This actually validates a few of the concerns the community have presented in this counter proposal. You have already decided on how to allocate the finances, and expect a clear yes vote on any IF proposals. Yet there has been no open declaration of intent as to how the IF intends to allocate the community DAOs funds.

Rhis also presents the haste factor. If you allocat 50% and are concerned about a 15% decrease this demonstrates the intent to spend them in the firat 6 months.

Following on from this, the fact that you say 30 instead of 35 shows you havent read the proposal clearly. It clearly defines support for the original proposal but with a few community focused alterations.

If the initiative is a succes then bringing another vote in 6 months time to allocate more resources woll be easy to do with a more established governance framework.

It should not be about all in and fomo but bigger picture and sustainable DAO management.

How does going from ~150% of the initial token allocation to ~130% of it reduce what you can do with it by half? As the proposal states you can always later on ask for more funds, but then the community should see what it is being spend on. And of course due to NDAs some of that information might be limited or delayed for example, but you can still list how many funds are used in which category and what was achieved. And I assume not everything is covered under NDAs.

But your flat out refusal to share with the community what you did with the existing funds, and your flat our refusal to have any kind of transparancy what will happen with the requested funds, does not support your story. If someone else requested $10k from the DAO they have to give a complete explanation on what they will do with the funds and in what way, and your request is hunderds of times this, but you won’t give any kind of transparancy to the community. How should we know 35% is not enough and 50% is enough, if you won’t give even the most basic of budget plans?

At this point you should decide if you actually want an involved community, or not.


After reading doms post, just a last thought on this;

Right now there could be some serious industrial partners knocking on the IF’s doors.
Maybe a bank which wants to test the opportunities for new groundbreaking financial products or a big player from the machine industry who tries to invent new tools for their automated fabrication.
They could just be waiting for an incentive to start building on Shimmer, such as an amount of tokens as collateral.

I have obviously no insight in these processes and these are just speculations, but for real … After Iota got to the last round of Ebsi the examples above dont seem unlikely to me and I would not want to miss such opportunities just because we decide to cut the funding now.


Or they could just be financially in a wreck, these hypotheticals go nowhere

1 Like

I am in favor and I vote yes.
I am involved in several Boards of Directors and I know how this works. I just want to see how strong Dom and the IF can interfere in their favor with this vote.
And to what extent can it become a reality that the community can have more vigilance over the funds Shimmer and finally who will represent the community, that will be another XD …

I whole heartedly agree, the IF can rig this in their favour

What’s all of that uproar. Dom knows this business best, trust him.


exactly dom knows best

disagree, the additional 50% are vital for the IF’s success, they make sure that IF can get their hands on the funds to seize the right opportunities when they present themselves


I too support this sentiment

1 Like