Reading time saved: 1 minutes
3 replies, 465 views, 14 likes
Midgetwhale proposed a new method for STIP vote fund distribution based on a pro rata basis, aiming for a more equitable allocation to all qualifying projects. While the community generally supports this, concerns include potential over-inflation of funding requests and the need for a cap on funding for individual projects to ensure efficient use of funds.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Posted 2 months ago
Last reply 2 months ago
Summary updated a month ago
Last updated 08/12 04:40