What is this about?

This discussion revolves around a proposal by Midgetwhale for a new method of distributing funds in the STIP vote. The proposed method suggests a pro rata basis of allocation, where funds are distributed based on the number of votes each project receives, as long as they reach quorum and a 50% in favour vote¹. The aim is to ensure that all qualifying projects receive some funding, rather than the current all-or-nothing approach.

How is the community reacting?

The community's reaction to this proposal is generally positive. SnF_NFT-Fi_Leo agrees with the proposal, highlighting the current issue of the DAO approving more tokens than the approved budget. They also suggest that projects should be required to submit a draft for their campaign, but without excessive detail, and emphasize the importance of distributing grants to as many projects as possible given the finite budget². Padzank finds the idea an improvement on the current system, but expresses concern that this method might incentivize projects to over-inflate their funding requests³. JoePadawan1 suggests a cap on the amount of funding a single project can receive to spur growth in multiple projects⁴.

Why this is positive?

The proposed method could potentially ensure a more equitable distribution of funds, allowing more projects to receive funding. This could spur growth in multiple projects and prevent the DAO from approving more tokens than the approved budget. The requirement for projects to submit a draft for their campaign could also ensure that only well-planned and feasible projects receive funding.

Why this is negative?

There are concerns that the proposed method might incentivize projects to over-inflate their funding requests. This could lead to an inefficient use of funds and potentially hinder the growth of the community. There is also a suggestion for a cap on the amount of funding a single project can receive, which could potentially limit the growth of larger, more ambitious projects.