Test Proposal for Community Marketing Funding

Philosophy and Economics
1

Updated version located in the comment section

This is not a complete proposal but I wanted to offer it for review before I continued to put more time and effort into something that needs revisions. Please let me know what you think and what you think might need to be added or revised. Thank you.

Established Funding for Community Marketing

It has come to the attention of the community that achieving a unified voice as to the direction of each marketing campaign very seldom falls into “our” hands. The purpose of this proposal is to establish an accountable and structured solution to help allocate a portion of funds from The Tezos Foundation grant system into the Homebase DAO protocol. In doing so, the community will have the power to collaborate, reason, and reach consensus through a uniformed voting process in which every member has an equal vote.

Execution

Should this proposal be accepted, The Tezos Foundation will be responsible for placing ten percent of their annual budget not to exceed fifteen million dollars, dependent on market evaluation as of January 1st of the present year and reviewed in the semiannual foundation statement into the Homebase DAO platform. The yearly expenditure shall be place into the smart contract platform with the ability to be removed by The Tezos Foundation with sixty-five percent quorum among voters partaking in the system. The Tezos Foundation reserves the right to evaluate the annual spending habits of the Community Market Funding and either continue to fund, request for remediation, or cease to exist, in the last quarter, per annum

A voting committee will be formed by members of the Tezos community that show good faith for the wellbeing of the future benefit; Each member who wishes to gain voting rights will be required to lock one thousand Tez into an account to represent their unified interest in the future of the Tezos ecosystem. The funds will not be delegated to ensure that the locked funds only appreciate if The Tezos ecosystem is benefited by the decisions of the members whom partake in voting. Regardless of the price of Tezos, the locked token amount shall remain the same unless otherwise ratified by a three-fourths vote amendment. In order to ensure that members have not created multiple addresses to cast more than a single vote, a KYC process will be required to include drivers license, passport or other form of government identification, and legal residence.

The voting system will mimic the method used by the Tezos main protocol but with shortened stages. There will be twelve voting periods per year, with the proposal period starting on the first of every month and the promotion vote being held on the last three consecutive days of every month.

Scheduling

• Proposal period: delegates can submit protocol amendment proposals using the proposals operation. At the end of a proposal period, the two proposals with most supporters are selected and we move to peer review vote period. If there are no proposals, or a tie between proposals creating more than two passing proposals, a new tie breaking vote it held. If the vote returns in a tie again, both proposals are moved into the following months proposal period. Each delegate can submit a maximum of 2 proposals per voting period, including duplicates. (One week)
• Peer review period: delegates can discuss and debate the potential pro’s and cons. At any point in the second week, voters may cast one vote to accept or not accept the winning proposals into the final stage by using the ballot operation. At the end of the vote period, if participation reaches a sixty five percent quorum, in favor, we proceed to a promotion period. Otherwise, the proposals are moved into the following month’s proposal period. (Two weeks)
• Promotion vote period: The remaining days leading to the last three days of the month are left for persuasive arguments to be made in favor or against the proposal. Delegates can cast one “yay” or one “nay” vote using the ballot operation. At the end of a promotional vote period, if participation reaches a super-majority of eighty percent in favor, it is activated as the new protocol. Otherwise, the proposal is sent to the go into the proposal period of the following month. (Last three days of each month)

Voters will be able to switch their votes up until the last day of each voting session.

Proposals

Each proposal must include the following, at minimum:

  1. Purpose for the proposal
  2. Plan/Explanation of how the proposal fills the needs of the community
  3. Background and history research of firm or agency being used for promotional purposes as well as references to previous completed projects
  4. Payment schedule cost breakdown.
  5. Metrics for success
  6. Supervisor (Member or multiple members in charge of tracking metrics of success. Any fees for doing so should be broken out from the amount being paid to the agency or firm.)

Supervision

Should the community choose, a single member or multiple members, may be selected to fill a supervisory roll to any proposal. Any fees can be broken out into the schedule and paid upfront or according to a schedule of values and sent in installments upon completion of certain aspects. I vote can be called to remove any member if the voting committee deems the member unable or unfit to complete the required tasks. A supermajority of seventy five percent must be met to remove a member from a supervisory role.

Legal

All legal powers and legal matters shall be dealt with by the Tezos Foundation. No voting member will ever have full control or custody of the funds. All payments will be made directly to any firm or agency in accordance with local laws and jurisdictions.

1 Like
2

Perfectparadox thank you for taking the time to put this plan together. I like your idea of locking coins to vote. Algorand is doing the same with their governance. However in their system governers make more than the average rewards with their locked coins; they just need to wait a year locked to claim those rewards. Not saying their approach is better, just stating for comparison. I do not agree with using KYC though, I believe that is a step backwards. We can not be dependent on any government controls in order to be truely borderless. I told the leaders of Algo the same thing during a live stream about their new governance model and a few others agreed. Enough of us were against KYC that they might have listened. Locking coins for a year may have enough effect to prevent people from over voting. Instead of KYC they are using a “Quadratic Voting” model to prevent over voting.

We hope to have more informal discussions on leverage Homebase via http://t.me/TezosGovernance

1 Like
3

Great reply. Thank you. I’m actually revising the proposal as we speak. I like the quadratic voting idea. The only thing that stands out to me, if I understand this correctly, is the fact that not all voting power would be considered equal. Larger entities could add extra voting power to ensure that their firm or Idea of interest was approved and may receive kickbacks under the table. I know the KYC is “icky” but I think we can find a way to make it less scary. Maybe something with a smart contract that builds a database that isn’t assessible by any party but has the ability to bound the information off of a pool of data to verify a user isn’t double dipping? It sounds complicated but there are a lot of individuals, (most) that are smarter than I. There has to be a way to keep identities safe while keeping the funds from being manipulated. With millions of dollars in the communities hands, I would hate to overlook ay safety precautions.

Ah, so you can add votes with more credits. Maybe not actually purchase them. if each voter was allotted 100 votes. They can place 18 votes with their 100 credits or 5 for 25 credits. and use the remaining credits on other proposals… Intersting.

4

Let me know if anyone has any ideas on not using KYC and still ensuring multiple addresses aren’t created for influence

Updated with more Detail:

Established Funding for Community Interests

It has come to the attention of the community that achieving a unified voice as to the direction of each marketing campaign very seldom falls into “our” hands. The purpose of this proposal is to establish an accountable and structured solution to help allocate a portion of funds from The Tezos Foundation grant system into the Homebase DAO protocol. In doing so, the community will have the power to collaborate, reason, and reach consensus through a uniformed voting process in which every member has an equal vote. Proposals suggested by the community can include any ideas to further the Tezos ecosystem including, but not limited to, marketing, developer funding, education, hackathons, sponsorships, and community rewards. Note: It is possible to establish multiple “community funds” for individual regions. IE North America, Asia, Middle East, etc. to remediate any cultural or geographical differences that may create gridlock. In which case, funds should be distributed proportionally depending on the voting pool size.

Execution

Should this proposal be accepted, The Tezos Foundation will be responsible for placing ten percent of their annual budget not to exceed fifteen million dollars, dependent on market evaluation as of January 6th of the present year and reviewed in the semiannual foundation statement into the Homebase DAO platform. The yearly expenditure shall be place into the smart contract platform with the ability to be removed by The Tezos Foundation with sixty-five percent quorum among voters partaking in the system. The Tezos Foundation reserves the right to evaluate the annual spending habits of the Community Market Funding and either continue to fund, request for remediation, or cease to exist, in the last quarter, per annum

A voting committee will be formed by members of the Tezos community that show good faith for the well-being of the future of the Tezos ecosystem; Each member who wishes to gain voting rights will be required to lock one thousand Tez into an account to represent their unified interest in the future of the Tezos ecosystem. The funds may be baked and/or delegated but the rewards will not be returned to the Tez holder to ensure that the locked funds only appreciate if The Tezos ecosystem is benefited by the decisions of the members who partake in voting. The baking rewards shall be accumulated and placed into the “Community Fund” on the first day of each quarter. Regardless of the price of Tezos, the locked token amount shall remain the same unless otherwise ratified by a three-fourths vote amendment. In order to ensure that members have not created multiple addresses to cast more than a single vote, a KYC process will be required to include drivers license, passport or other form of government identification, and legal residence.

The voting system will mimic the method used by the Tezos main protocol but with shortened stages. There will be twelve voting periods per year, with the proposal period starting on the first of every month and the promotion vote being held on the last three consecutive days of every month.
Scheduling

• Proposal period: delegates can submit protocol amendment proposals using the proposals operation. At the end of a proposal period, the two proposals with most supporters are selected and we move to peer review vote period. If there are no proposals, or a tie between proposals creating more than two passing proposals, a new tie breaking vote it held. If the vote returns in a tie again, both proposals are moved into the following months proposal period. Each delegate can submit a maximum of 2 proposals per voting period, including duplicates. (One week)
• Peer review period: delegates can discuss and debate the potential pro’s and cons. At any point in the second week, voters may cast one vote to accept or not accept the winning proposals into the final stage by using the ballot operation. At the end of the vote period, if participation reaches a sixty five percent quorum, in favor, we proceed to a promotion period. Otherwise, the proposals can be revised and are moved into the following month’s proposal period unless withdrawn. (Two weeks)
• Promotion vote period: The remaining days leading to the last three days of the month are left for persuasive arguments to be made in favor or against the proposal. Delegates can cast one “yay” or one “nay” vote using the ballot operation. At the end of a promotional vote period, if participation reaches a super-majority of eighty percent in favor, it is activated as the new protocol. Otherwise, the proposal is sent to the go into the proposal period of the following month. (Last three days of each month)

Voters will be able to switch their votes up until the last day of each voting session. Once a proposal is passed, all voters, regardless of voting decision, shall be recorded into a “Decision Ledger” and kept for future voting needs.

Proposals

Each proposal must include the following, at minimum before being presented to the board:

  1. Purpose for the proposal
  2. Plan/Explanation of how the proposal fills the needs of the community
  3. Background and history research of firm, agency, or event being proposed as references to previous completed projects or events.
  4. Payment schedule cost breakdown.
  5. Metrics for success
  6. Supervisor (Member or multiple members in charge of tracking metrics of success. Any fees for doing so should be excluded and itemized separately from the proposed amount being paid to execute the contract.) IE “(X) amount Tez shall be split between three supervisors and paid in full upon the completions of (proposed) for their due diligence in maintaining contact, with (Y) firm and reporting the progress to the community, throughout the fiscal year or until the project is completed.” Upon acceptance of the proposal, users would be able to be able to elect any parties showing interest in the supervisory role based on reputation and competence.

Supervision

Should the community choose, a single member or multiple members, may be selected to fill a supervisory role to any proposal. Proposals may not be supervised solely by the proposer. All supervisors must be approved by a simple majority vote of 51%. Any compensation should be itemized into a separate schedule and paid upfront or according to a schedule of values and sent in installments upon completion of certain milestones. 1(a)The board must be made aware of any allocation of funds planned to be used to compensate supervisory roles, including any involvement between supervisor and proposal in which the supervisor will benefit financially from the execution of the proposal.

A vote can be called to remove any member if the voting committee deems the member unable or unfit to complete the required tasks. A supermajority of seventy five percent must be met to remove a member from a supervisory role unless evidence is presented in which Section 1(a) is violated. In which case, a majority vote of fifty-one percent vote is needed to remove the supervisor from the role and involvement from the project. Voters must have partaken in the original proposal in order to vote on the removal of a supervisor.

Legal

All legal powers and legal matters shall be dealt with by the Tezos Foundation. No voting member will ever have full control or custody of the funds. All payments will be made directly to any firm or agency in accordance with local laws and jurisdictions.

Members are required to partake in fifty percent of votes per annum in order to maintain an active status. Members can withdraw from the committee at any time and withdraw the amount placed into the “hold account”. After the establishment of the first committee, new members must wait until the start of the next voting cycle before gaining voting power to mitigate late and/or partially informed “swing voting”. Any disputes not covered herein would should be decided by a seventy-five percent majority vote.

Passing Proposals

Upon a passing vote, the process would start in selecting a supervisor(s). The supervisor would then begin the introductory period in which they would coordinate the transfer of funds through the smart contract platform in order to finalize the contract. Legally binding contracts will be executed on the Tezos blockchain and available to the voting committee to review. Should personal information of the supervisor be required, such as name or address, originals should be stored by the Tezos Foundation and Redacted copies should be posted. Supervisors then continue their duties as outlined in the proposal.

1 Like
5

Thanks for taking the initiative. This is the way to go, will be following this.

2 Likes