Ya, for sure. Regarding 50/50 Co-funding the target areas, the distinction between the two is covered under 5.0 Funding Priorities with 5.1 IOTA Community Treasury and 5.2 Shimmer Community Treasury. There will always be certain things, particularly developing tooling, that is nearly the same on both networks. However, during these instances, it will be up to the Program Lead and committees to discuss these fringe instances and how to handle them. As always, everything is transparent, so a discussion can be ignited at that time if a community doesnât agree with the committeeâs decisions.
As for secession, issues regarding the LLC can be found in 3.2 The Tangle Community Treasury Grant Committee Term and 12.0 Changes to the framework. Section 3.2 discusses how if both communities in parallel vote to close the LLC or only their grant committee, then the Program and Co-Lead will ensure a smooth and legal shutdown of the grant committee and/or LLC. The defined exit strategy is written out clearly, but the document is long. Again, it is a legal document that becomes a bit long and detailed and sometimes it is hard to catch all these small things.
Hey Richard, i think you may have misunderstood something.
The intention here is clear, we want to have one committee to handle Grants for both communities under one legal entity.
Still, as there are 2 different groups of voters and 2 different (though still very related) networks, we chose the path to enable potential changes of how Grants are operated for every Group of voters/network. So IF in the future, the IOTA Voters would like to change something specifically for IOTA (be it Funding Tiers, objectives, etc etc) it can be easily changed for only one network and still operated by the same set of Reviewers.
Funding of Grants that are only focussed on one of the networks must of course be separated. Lets say a proposal to deploy a bridge between IOTA and another network is approved. Such a thing must of course be 100% funded from the âIOTAâ Pot, because there is no benefit in it for Shimmer.
A Video that explains and promotes only Shimmer and its features. Ecosystem etc would then rather be paid only from the Shimmer pot. Though you still could argue that IOTA âinderectlyâ benefits from that content, but itâs likely hard to tell and estmilate how much.
A third thing would be a tool that is funded - lets say âCreate Node JS binding for the IOTA SDKâ - This benefits both networks as the codebase is used in both networks. Such a thing would then be funded 50/50.
I was also first for the complete separation of both networks, Specifications (would have basically created a copy of the SMR specifications for IOTA and adjusted it slightly), but in the discussions through our meetings it became clear that this would likely be overkill for now.
Lets start with this combined approach. If things get more busy and more complex we can always extend and even completely separate and create 2 individual committees, but i donât think this is necessary in the near future.
You guys have done a good job and gained the needed experience to handle this for now.
In March next year we will have the next chance to adjust something based on the learnings of the next months and then also both communities will vote for the new committee members. We will see if there is a need to adjust this further until then.
A bit of background can also be given to the larger vision. It is also difficult to articulate four months of weekly discussions into a single post.
The proposal is only for the interim period between now and March 2024. This will align community voting yearly in February/March. The grant submission rate is currently low and will be after EVM. So, at present, the current committee can manage both communities.
However, come February 2024, we all must campaign and be elected for the positions. At this point, the community can decide if they want a whole other committee, how many committee members, and if they want a second program lead and incur that cost. Personally, I could use a few more reviewers in the IOTA committee specifically, preferably someone with a crypto investing background. Still, we donât need two program leads just yet.
It may be March next year, or it may be March 2025. However, I fully hope our treasuries will be worth multi-millions in $USD valuation. At that point, we will need community team leads, and the program lead will move up to be an LLC manager. With the review teams, that individual can determine the fringe circumstances when grants actually fall within two communities and how they get decided. Other than that, the LLC manager would manage the payments with the multi-sig signers, contracts, and all financial record keeping while maintaining everything public on the website.
As I said, this is âifâ things scale, and who knows what happens between now and then? Everything could change, and the scaling solution could completely differ from what we picture today. Yet, for the next five months, this gives a guideline and revisions of how to run the committees and incorporate the IOTA Community treasury. The next step will be forming and electing the IOTA committee and the second set of elections for the Shimmer community treasury.
In the German Stammtisch today, we had a discussion about the future of the treasury:
We found that there should be a scoring for impact. While relevance and the idea of a proposal are definitely not irrelevant, it is the impact on the ecosystem that plays a big role. Essentially measuring the âwhat if it all worksâ-scenario and measuring the gain for the network.
Also, there was a rather large consensus, that the treasury should not fund for-profit projects that already had an ICO with a developer allocation unless they allocate a part of their tokens. The reason for this was, that the treasury should focus on projects that donât already have a big source of inflow and not give out âcheap moneyâ to projects that already earned a lot.
In terms of strategy, the treasury should create a strategy what it wants to fund, but deviate from it as soon as there is an interesting idea.
I just want to thank everyone for thier comments and discussions. This is exactly what governance in action is all about. It will be rare that someone puts up a Phase I proposal and immediately has community consensus on approval.
Based on summaries from the German Stammtisch, comments here, and other community group discussions, I have created a Rev2 proposal. I tried to make a better summary to shorten the length of the proposal and changed the terminology of, âinvestâ, to, âuse idle funds to support the ecosystemâ.
I would like to be clear that this proposal in no way tries to allow the committee to become some type of VC or investment firm. The treasury is a grant program at its core and should always be. A draft proposal of Rev.2 of the proposal can be found here Proposal V.2. If there are no more major revisions required I will aim to resubmit this version two on Sunday.
Yes, you need to reach the 50 likes again after changing the proposal (except for stuff like typos or broken links).
This is just to give the community a preview, so we donât need a third iteration. Havenât been able to check it yet, maybe I will propose some more changes.