I don’t have fully formed thoughts here, so I will just share what I have and hope that people weight accordingly
-
I understand the desire to experiment, but I don’t agree that doing something fast is better than nothing, especially with the amount of money involved. To me there has to be a “minimum viable product” that we actually have some belief will work and bring net positive value to the ecosystem
-
I’d vote for using ReleaseGold contracts for both grants + stewards. Funds should vest over time and if we are unhappy with either grant recipients or stewards, it’s an easy way to reduce risk to the fund.
-
On the fees - I’m definitely down to pay well for good labor, and we are limited by the proposed stewards, but just because someone is on the dance floor doesn’t mean they should be compensated like a tango expert. I was a member of Dorm Room Fund as a student, and we were not compensated but did have the opportunity to manage a $500k fund, with the logic that gaining this experience positioned one well to get into VC as a career. I think the ideal candidate for a steward would be someone who has existing access to lots of builder/founders (big twitter following), experience in VC or an ecosystem fund, lots of unique crypto experience, marketing background, etc. So I’m happy to pay a professional rate for a professional, but I would need to be convinced that one’s previous experience qualified as professional.
-
If the thesis is “do what the foundation is doing”, where is the foundation lacking? I’d be more compelled if I heard “the foundation is missing these builders, and we as stewards can reach them”. If the goal is get something out to maximize learning, how can this proposal maximize the community learning by doing something different?
-
I’d love to see an “investment prospectus” of potential grants to give me more confidence in how the stewards will manage the grants as part of this proposal.
-
I would also prefer a smaller initial fund (200-300K) + 2 stewards to build momentum. If this first proposal doesn’t work well, we look at a tougher governance vote in 6 months for the “Fund II”. However, I think coming back in 6 months with a few success stories and a proposal to double the size + add a steward seems a lot nicer
In general, I think perfection is the enemy of progress, but I also think we should hold a reasonable bar for the community fund