We’re already doing it. Just look at the open bounties. From my list numbers 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 are already being conducted in some form. Most of the bounties being created will support or are supporting para projects directly or indirectly.
@tom.stakeplus can we agree that the treasury would not be successful in directly incubating projects?
In these case, the treasury is funding a bounty, with a list of high quality curators which should be the ones who are actually doing the work of incubating the projects in question.
This makes sense to me if it is done well; and really the due diligence needed from the treasury is selecting the right curators and allocating the right budget.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean in context of direct vs indirect incubation. What I was speaking about was creating the structures / collectives that allow this to happen. An incubator is just a structure of sub-structures / operations. In the incubator you’d have different divisions, departments and people overseeing different programs / operations. You could think of those as bounties / collectives that oversee specific operations. You wouldn’t want to hire a chef to be in charge of the e-commerce division and we probably wouldn’t want a chef in charge of a technical support bounty.
The main difference I see between an incubator and OpenGOV is intent. Through OpenGOV we seem to be very reactive, short sighted without intent / direction in the actions that are being taken. If I say, “hey we’re an incubator”, it will illicit reactions. But if you just look at the organic flow / activity, that is the path we’re taking.
Exactly this. And, it’s what we’re already doing. The difference is just saying the quiet part out loud which allows us a greater collective understanding / direction. We can start to be more forward looking / acting.
As far as I see it we (Polkadot DAO members) have 2 missions.
- Create the structures that are necessary for the on-going development and operations of Polkadot itself (polkadot-sdk, polkadot js api, etc… Marketing, Support, etc…). You can think of this as “Product development & operations” commonly referred to as “Common Goods”.
- Create the structures that are necessary to on-board “customers” to use the technology. Who are the customers? Anyone who uses the technology to build some product, service, application, etc. This means creating structures that will educate and assist those who wish to use the technology to develop some other structures / operations. You can think of this as “Incubation” commonly referred to as “For Profit”. They’re thought of as “For Profit” primarily because they prefer to launch their own transaction / governance token.
I would argue that even #2 is common goods because anything built on polkadot will ultimately add to its collective value as I eluded to in my op re open source pallets.
I would vote NAY if Parachain X makes a proposal to have the Polkadot Treasury invest 100,000 DOT to fund their project or execute a SAFT.
I might vote AYE if a team like Polimec were to ask for 100,000 DOT to make co-investments on behalf of the Polkadot Treasury along side highly qualified VCs.
The first situation is a direct investment into a speculative parachain team. Perhaps what is being lost is that many people I talk to think that the treasury is the way to directly get initial funding for their project. My whole post is pointing out why such actions are sub-optimal.
The second is an investment into an accountable team of people who have staked their previous reputation in the Polkadot ecosystem. They also appear to have a transparent system on how they will spend funds, how profits go back to their team, and have the ability to actually work with project teams to help them succeed.
1 Like
Ah, I believe the only direct investments we should make are as incentives for the completion of some program / operations or as a more unified strategy (e.g games bounties vs direct investment into one specific gaming protocol). The airdrop idea was interesting, but I’m not sure how that’d be sustainable. It would make sense for us to co-invest on polimec to support Polimec and ecosystem projects. If we do so variably (by matching) the “crowd” does the DD on behalf of the treasury.
There is an attack vector that teams could submit their own DOT to claim an extra N% from treasury. That would need to be taken care of with criteria / rules for qualification.
More important than this, IMO, is incentivizing and revamping the PBA and having more PBAs / equivalents. Competition to bring teams and individuals into ecosystems is high. For example, another multi-chain competitor is paying $50,000 per team and $400,000 as a hackathon reward for completing their PBA equivalent. Their program allows individuals to apply to join teams as members.
By incentivizing our programs sufficiently and being more thoughtful in operations (outcomes, missions and goals), we wouldn’t need to be worried about if the treasury should play VC or not. The teams would be sufficiently incentivized based on their completion / performance and have the funding they need to make it to the next stage.
If we have a support network in place of collectives & bounties that teams can reach out to for assistance we can reduce the overall requirements for teams to launch from millions to thousands.
This is an example of how by not framing what we’re doing as incubation, program / bounty / collective managers and agents along with ecosystem voters don’t get things quite right. It’s a difference of a game of community “Shark Tank” vs a message of “Come here, build, we will support you. We can’t promise you will succeed, but you will have an opportunity”.
2 Likes
I love the discussions you bring to light; they are very important topics for Polkadot. According to what you have written, I must say that it is one of the things that motivated me to get more involved in the ecosystem, and there are certainly issues that, from my perspective and point of view, have gotten a bit out of control.
My ideas on this matter, and I emphasize that they are my ideas, are:
- The treasury should not pay for everything. I understand that there are many projects that have come to light thanks to it, but there are also others that have taken advantage of its functioning. There are tools that have been funded before being built and either have not been delivered or their functionality leaves much to be desired. I prefer the plan, build the demo, present it, we test it, you sell it to us, or we give you the final push to put it into production and make it self-sustaining.
- Ok, there may be cases where the teams presenting the proposal are newly formed and do not have the capital to self-finance until they present the demo. So, why should the treasury pay for something so risky from an inexperienced team? In that case, wouldn’t it be more advisable to advise them to acquire the minimum required experience and funds through other means available in the ecosystem?
- Can we be flexible? Yes, of course, but up to what point should this flexibility be given? Do we know what Polkadot needs? Does what you are contributing bring us closer to that goal?
These are some of my points of view. The community must conduct very thorough evaluations and not just approve proposals that are full of hope.
1 Like