Moonwell’s community members are encouraged to submit proposals to improve the platform and community. However, the current proposal reward of 100,000 WELL may incentivize some individuals to write proposals for personal gain rather than for the benefit of the community. Therefore, we propose to reduce the proposal reward from 100,000 WELL to 10,000 WELL.
The reduction of the proposal reward from 100,000 WELL to 10,000 WELL will significantly reduce the risk of personal gain from proposal writing while still providing a fair compensation for the time and effort put into creating a proposal. The money saved from this reduction can be utilized for various incentive programs such as Crew3 Quests, which currently offers a first-place reward of only $100, which is ten times less than the current proposal reward. By reallocating the funds saved, we can offer more significant rewards for incentive programs, motivating community members to engage and participate more actively.
Moreover, the funds saved from the proposal reward reduction can also be used to improve Moonwell’s marketing and advertising campaigns. An enhanced and more effective marketing and advertising strategy can attract more clients and create a more positive image in the media, ultimately driving growth and increasing the platform’s overall value.
In summary, by reducing the proposal reward from 100,000 WELL to 10,000 WELL, we can reduce the risk of personal gain and reallocate the funds saved to enhance Moonwell’s incentive programs and marketing efforts. We believe that these changes will benefit the community as a whole and help drive long-term growth and success for Moonwell. Therefore, we urge the community to consider this proposal and vote in favor of its implementation.
Hey @OgM1ke, thanks for your valuable contribution regarding the proposal reward for authors. I agree that the funds could be better utilized in other areas, such as Crew3/Zealy quests like you mentioned. The reallocation of funds may contribute to the long-term growth and development of our community.
I agree that reducing the proposal reward from 100,000 WELL to 10,000 WELL is a wise decision. The concern about personal gain has been raised several times in Moonwell community channels, so I believe this change would address a real concern of our community, while still providing fair compensation for the time and effort put into creating a proposal.
I particularly endorse the allocation of the saved funds towards Crew3/Zealy Quests, as I see using social engagement tools as the path forward in web3. There is a growing interest and engagement in our questboard, and we do not want to miss the opportunity to retain these individuals. Having access to WELL to promote these things would be a significant benefit in retaining our current community members and converting more users into active holders. Therefore, I believe that this proposal will be beneficial to the community in the long run.
The “proposal reward” WELL grants that are being described here follow a precedent set by the author of MIP-2 (@not-taco), to encourage others to put in the time and effort needed to create and shepherd through important governance proposals. A snapshot vote would be more fitting than an onchain vote in this circumstance, as this would merely be a way of gauging community sentiment around these delegate “grants to self”. As far as when does the vote start, that depends on when a community member with 200,000 WELL voting power submits the proposal to the Snapshot Portal.
Last thing I will say on the topic is that in my personal opinion, incentivization is vital to the effectiveness and sustainability of DAO governance. I’m not saying these grants to self are necessarily the best long term solution, but in my opinion it is important to reward those who are putting in the work to keep the protocol functioning. Monthly stipends to the most active delegates could be another route to explore.
Hey @OgM1ke and @CryptoKichta, I’m not certain who submitted this proposal to the Governance Portal, but it would be better if you could cancel it and then resubmit it to the Snapshot Portal instead. As mentioned earlier, the Snapshot Portal is the preferred avenue for gauging community sentiment/opinion. On the other hand, the Gov Portal and MIPs are primarily intended for proposals that involve updates to the protocol’s codebase.
hello ser it is I who submitted this proposal not seeing anyone submitting it and I am pleasantly surprised to see that we already have so many votes without you having relayed the information.
I think this shows that we don’t really need to take the temperature with the snapshot vote. I don’t even know how to cancel the proposal.
What do you suggest to do?
I think that if you relay we can quickly reach the quorum in favor of this proposal
Hey @Bored-Steeve, thank you for responding! I would suggest that you cancel the onchain proposal and submit it to the Snapshot Portal, as that is the appropriate place for this type of proposal (one that merely aims to poll the community on a topic).
To reemphasize what I was saying earlier, these delegate grants-to-self are merely following a previously set precedent. Your onchain proposal is impossible to enact/enforce, as it alone won’t prevent people from including a grant-to-self in future proposals. All it “enacts” is a 100k WELL grant to your own wallet. The way to accomplish what the proposal author is aiming for here would be to either:
Vote against proposals that include a 100k WELL grant and let the community know in the Forums/Discord that this is why you are voting against it.
Bring attention to the topic and poll the community through a forum post and snapshot vote, in hopes that delegates/future proposal authors will take note.
To cancel the onchain proposal you will need to:
Decrease your voting power below the proposal threshold of 400,000 WELL.
a. You can do this by moving a portion of your held WELL or stkWELL to a different wallet or temporarily delegating to another wallet.
Navigate to the proposal page, scroll down to the bottom of the proposal, and click the “Cancel Proposal” button.
Once you resubmit the proposal to the Snapshot Portal, an autotweet will go out like the one that recently went out for the Anthias grant proposal.
Hi @Bored-Steeve - what is the intended purpose of this proposal?
In its current form this on-chain proposal is basically just gauging sentiment (which IMO is better done via snapshot vote so there can be multiple choices, ranked choice voting, etc) and simply giving you 100,000 WELL for something that can’t actually be enacted by anyone, and with no code changes proposed to the actual protocol.
I think the whole DAO is open to new ideas or changes to existing process but this doesn’t feel like a way to actually change the existing process for contributors.
If, for example, you did something like put together some guidelines or a code of conduct that stipulated some cap on submissions that was ratified in the snapshot system by token holders, then it’s really easy to point to that in the future and say “this proposal doesn’t adhere to the guidelines agreed to by the DAO holders” and advocate against it. A good example of this sort of thing would be the Asset Listing Framework put forth by Gauntlet to establish some standards around what ideal criteria tokens have before being turned on by the community.
This is not that though, and I’m struggling to see how this proposal does anything other than just give you 100,000 WELL tokens.