This was the request.
Based on your above statement, there should still be that much bank left in your multi sig. because no payouts have concluded.
So are you looking to add on to the bank treasury you already have left over? Or should the amount you’ve proposed be subtracted from the season 5 total?
See my comment on the 244k bank season 5 request.
My same question I believe would go for the 30k bank research guild request.
Ultimately the problem I see and have is that there’s a lot of missing information which makes it hard to understand the need for 780k.
Again, I see the talent in this project, but I don’t see ( @sandeepdas9179 and @dancingpenguin.eth got me closer) the clarity behind the numbers.
Do we end up seeing another grant for 1.2 mil in season 7? Where does the self sovereignty come into play?
If we can see exactly who got paid what, and how much bank went towards the progression of the project, and what results have come from the project so far, then I would say for sure! They need the bank to keep the train moving!
But I don’t think I see it right now.
@senad.eth
In the Season 6 budget proposal, which is found via the link provided in br’s thread:
0929Original budget proposal
The summary of the project (see image)
Dear homie,
Bankless Research received the first tranche of S5 fundings from GC beginning of October. The second tranche is going to be paid on 8 November. Payouts will be conducted after the second tranche has been received. As you can see from the table above this covers role holder salaries and project incentives.
The 30k was a kickoff funding by research guild to get the project started and is in line with the research guild incentive framework as per funding request proposal.
Nobody can predict the future. However, we are striving to be cash-flow positive by the end of S6, as stated in the S6 grants proposal.
Your concerns are very important to us and we strive to provide clarity.
The budget proposal in your link and the one submitted above are the same.
The issue you are raising here does not contain any new aspects and have already been addressed above.
Am I correctly understanding that the **Ratified working agreement was deemed outdated and a second version replace it prior to the “announcement” of a second version? I guess that would leave someone confused as to why there was not an “announcement” on the intent to draft a second version, collaboratively draft with subsequent attempt at ratification. **
The link to the capabilities deck on the season 6 budget proposal **(assuming unintentionally) has the landing page at page 9. Therefor unless the reader were to specifically look for previous pages they would miss that the mission of br has been changed here also. I would also note that some pages on this deck are private. Why is that? I would think all of this would be considered a lack of transparency. **
Let’s look at this sentence. Specifically the “I” - kindly explain this please. As I was under the impression that there is not 1 central governing body in a decentralized project that could soly make decisions for the group. Am I incorrect?
1. I was unaware that a new member intake tally form constituted a new member onboarding project.
2. “Kickstarted grants working group/pod”
“Started grant hunting process workstream” This has not been done and is currently blocked, as the distribution model as outlined in this budget proposal* wants to be re-evaluated by br’s director and finance director
This is actually quite funny. As I began expressing my concerns on the season 6 budget on the respective thread Discord
and on the season 6 budget proposal that you linked. As the proposal document that was actually used only became available after the proposal was on the forum. Therefor blocking any contributions on it.
emphasized text@senad.eth It seems as though this document has been edited and completely changed minutes after my posting. Permissions have also been changed to view only. Please explain, as again this would seem to be the opposite of decentralized.
Here is the one submitted
So my questions remain:
@senad.eth please keep in mind my only goal here is that the budget proposal reflect accurate information and that all of the contribututors are able to have input on it.
By pointing this out, it has unearthed that the intentions and direction of this project have been changed. I would behoove you to share this new direction as there is no “I” in decision making for a project. “We” - as in everyone collectively make decisions.
Please also keep in mind, that as I restored the notion to it’s original state (prior to being altered) and the Google doc, this can be done for all shared documents. Every edit/change is recorded along with who made it.
If I had to generally give advise to anyone on this, it would be to not alter anything else. I would point out the snowball effect and reinforce the importance of honesty and integrity.
So sure, I understand completely, but when it’s all said and done,
What did you do to warrant the pay (that hasn’t been disbursed) and what are you going to do that warrants 780k.
Unfortunately, I’ve seen that directors aren’t even entirely sure about what’s going on. I just want to know what’s going on, and what’s going forward.
Hello Bankless Research Team! I’m your Grants Committee Reviewer.
If I’m being honest, I’m confused by this proposal. You’re asking for 3 times as much as you did in S5, and I don’t see ANY external-value deliverables you have built since then. Put in other words - you’ve spent a lot of time on structuring your project but very little time actually creating anything that potential clients might pay for.
Have you produced any reports or anything else to show the actual client-facing capacity you have? Did you lock down a client?
If you were asking for a similar amount to S5, I could see justifying the spend on a project trying to get its fundamentals correct before moving forward, but at 3x the spend (most of it going towards director salaries) I’m not comfortable approving this ask.
If you want my advice: I would suggest you focus your efforts on producing something that a potential client might pay for. At the moment, I don’t see a single deliverable which shows me that you can deliver even one of your product offerings.
Hi links!
We understand that as the project reviewer you need to ask us critical questions. We would like to run you through our calculations to provide more clarity and outline that our ask is not only in line with our plans and the current governing grants framework but also reasonable.
Like other bDAO projects, Bankless Research currently has 4 role holders. All four directors have long-term plans with Bankless Research and have proven on several occasions that they put the project’s interest first. Some Directors spent way more than 10hrs/week on the project since the S5 budget proposal was submitted, in particular with the increased workload after two role holders stepped down at the end of September. We want to be in a position to finally recognise such contributions in S6. 10hrs/week is most likely still underpaying our role holders and the actual work they will do, hence why we don’t think it makes sense to lower the ask for directors.
While it’s difficult to break down contributions into numbers, in particular as the support of mandates outside of their area is not accounted for, we acknowledge that most of us will spend at least 10 hrs/week following their mandates alone in S6, which you can find below.
With regards to a “client-facing” product, we have already disseminated two very successful studies in S4 with very happy clients. It was then that we saw the business model could be viable. Following this we concentrated in S5 on building out the structures to scale the project, such as a solid infrastructure, marketing capabilities and other back office work, to be able to deliver further products and services effectively. For S6 it is our intent to fill the product pipeline to enable us to not require further grants funding going forward.
We are asking for a higher S6 funding as we are striving to be cash flow positive towards the end of S6. It has been our understanding that the grants funding exists partially to bridge these periods of negative cash flow. The overall funding amount is in line with any other second funding asked for by projects we have seen and by no means exaggerated or unusual. We have two Directors less going forward from S5 to S6. As a consequence the current 4 Directors have taken on additional responsibilities which is all in line with our intention to maintain a lean structure. We believe that a certain degree of flexibility is required to enable us to adapt to changing circumstances on how resources are spent and allocated are at the discretion of the project to determine, as long as the calculations are reasonable and in line with underlying grant standards. We would also like to point out that while the role holder salaries have increased, the amount for project incentives has increased significantly more: five fold.
We have currently not received permission to share the respective final reports publicly until now.
