Results of the Tranche 2 Ecosystem vote

Governance Grant Proposals
1

The snapshot vote is now complete, and unfortunately, it has resulted in a hung vote situation - a “hung vote” occurs when more than 1.75M GLMR (or 38.89%) goes to the Community Committee Grants Bucket (which is controlled by the committee). With the current results, 3,009,697.98 GLMR or 66.88% would go to the Community Committee Grants Bucket.

The general intent of the ecosystem grants is for the grant amount to go to ecosystem teams and so this is a less than an ideal outcome. As a result, the committee has decided to resolve this in the following manner, and try to get as many teams in as possible:

  • Any teams that got more than 250K USD /1,032,204 GLMR / 22.93% of the vote will go on to an on-chain vote starting on Saturday 07-29-2023.
  • The remaining 3,009,697.98 GLMR will be put to a second snapshot vote between the teams that did NOT get grants in the first snapshot vote.

Adjustments for the On-chain vote

As described in the “Adjustments to Snapshot Vote” section of the Revised Grant Program; the grants committee has made the following adjustments:

  • Any proposal that would have received fewer than the equivalent of 250K USD /1,032,204 GLMR / 22.93% will not be placed into the on-chain vote.

  • Any proposal that would have received more than 2M GLMR (44.44% of the Vote) would have been capped at 2M. There were no proposals that received more than 44.44% so this does not apply.

  • The following teams reached the minimum threshold of 22.93% of the vote and will be placed into the on-chain vote:

    • TFA DAO - 33.118% of the vote - 1,490,302.02 GLMR

The following teams did not reach the minimum threshold of 22.93% of the vote and so will not go on to the on-chain vote:

  • Moonwell - 18.311% of the vote - 824,001.74 GLMR
  • Gamma - 16.627% of the vote - 748,207.67 GLMR
  • Beamswap - 11.622% of the vote - 523,010.57 GLMR
  • Moonfit - 6.586% of the vote - 296,360.50 GLMR
  • Stellaswap - 6.201% of the vote - 279,043.06 GLMR
  • Orbiter One - 2.955% of the vote - 132,995.69 GLMR
  • Arden Platform - 2.200% of the vote - 98,990.11 GLMR
  • Charm - 1.292% of the vote - 58,150.01GLMR
  • DefiEdge - 1.088% of the vote - 48,938.62 GLMR

The combined total of 3,009,697.98 GLMR would have gone to the Community Committee Grants Bucket. However, the committee would rather see more teams benefit from the ecosystem tranche and so has decided to create a second snapshot vote between the teams that did NOT get grants in the first snapshot vote for this remaining amount.

Rules for the second snapshot vote

The following rules apply for the second snapshot vote:

  • The second snapshot vote is to distribute the remaining 3,009,600 GLMR.

  • Only teams that did not get a grant in the first round are eligible, i.e.:

    • Moonwell
    • Gamma
    • Beamswap
    • Moonfit
    • Stellaswap
    • Orbiter One
    • Arden Platform
    • Charm
    • DefiEdge

  • Teams are encouraged to rally their communities to vote on their behalf, but they cannot offer any sort of financial reward to their communities to vote - this includes GLMR, their own native token, stable coins or fiat. NFTs are allowed; as long as these are along the lines of “I voted for team x” (i.e. no “Bored Apes” NFTs worth thousands of dollars, for obvious reasons).

  • The max amount that can be won is 1,490,302.02 GLMR to ensure no team can win more in the second round than was won in the first.

  • Only the top 4 teams will be awarded a grant.

  • Any amounts that would be awarded to the other teams will go to the Community Committee Grants Bucket instead.

  • After the winners of the second snapshot vote and the awarded amounts are known, the forum posts for the winners will be reopened and they will have TWO days to detail to the community how this new grant will be used. Teams MUST specify this (as it is likely to be a significantly lower amount than was originally asked for) or they forfeit the grant and it will go to the Community Committee Grants Bucket. They can of course decline the awarded amount.

  • Each team will then go to an individual on-chain vote and the community will get a chance to approve or disapprove the adjusted objectives.

  • If the on-chain vote does not pass, the grant will not be awarded and the funds will go to the Community Committee Grants Bucket.

Important dates

Saturday, 07/29: date the on-chain vote will be created to approve grants to the winners of the first snapshot vote

Monday, 07/31, 03:00 pm UTC: date the second snapshot vote will go live

Monday, 08/07, 03:00 pm UTC: date the second snapshot vote will complete

Wednesday, 08/09, 03:00 pm UTC: date by which the winners of the second snapshot vote will need to complete their updated milestones on the forum

Friday, 08/11: date by which the individual proposals for the winners of the second snapshot vote will be put on chain

Saturday 08/12: date by which the first on-chain vote will complete

Friday, 08/25: date by which the second set of on-chain votes will complete.

3 Likes
2

I wonder if it is really necessary to spend most of the funds, and if the community really does not want those funds to be distributed, cause think it is not necessary? or the teams do not excite them

2 Likes
3

and for example tfa dao, was only requesting 1m of glmr (the 250k min), why they will get more of the request amount?

not to mention the sudden change of weights that occurred in the votes at the last moment, it seems gamed for all the participants

2 Likes
4

Hey Thiago, I completely disagree with the decision of the Grants Committee.

It was well understood that the vote would only be valid if these 2 requirements were met:

  1. Teams need to receive the equivalent of 250K USD/1,032,204 GLMR (250K at a 0.2422$ 7-day TWAP) of the vote to be eligible. This represents 22.93% of vote.
  2. In the case where more than 1.75M GLMR is left-over, the vote is considered “hung” and invalid.

By changing the rules after the Snapshot vote, voters were not able to make an informed decision based on the rules you have adjusted after the fact.

Votes were made based on the rules set prior to the Snapshot vote.

If the community had known that the Grants Committee would adjust the rules after the fact to distribute Grants to a single eligible project (based on one of two considerations for a valid vote), I believe we would have seen a different result in the Snapshot vote.

I would also like to see more teams benefit from the ecosystem tranche. I like to propose another Snapshot vote.

Let’s do things properly.

3 Likes
5

How can project request a max of 1MIL GLMR and then be allocated a sum of 1.4MIL is beyond me. Why are such decisions done in few minutes without any open forum.

Changing rules for benefits of some projects?

2 Likes
6

yes i agree with @TheTeriyakiDon.dot , a new vote should be done, if we end with the same results, means that the community don’t want to give funds to the current teams

Or if there will be adjustments, should be mentioned before the vote, not after

1 Like
7

Hey @0x_thiago and all of the Moonbeam community members who are following these developments. I just wanted to share a few thoughts, as it pertains to this snapshot vote and subsequent revote. Full disclosure: I am a contributor to the Moonwell protocol, so I have my own biases, but I will do my best to speak as a non-biased member of the Moonbeam community.

First things first, governance is hard and can be messy. This isn’t anything exclusive to Moonbeam. Look at any project/ecosystem and you will find countless examples of difficulties and “learning as you go”. I preface with this as a way to ask everyone to please show some empathy and patience with the process. The onus is ultimately on us, the Moonbeam community, to help course correct and improve the process.

To take a few things from @0x_thiago’s posts, one by one:

Any teams that got more than 250K USD /1,032,204 GLMR / 22.93% of the vote will go on to an on-chain vote starting on Saturday 07-29-2023.

This was one of the most confusing parts of the original Snapshot proposal text. On the surface, this reads as though projects need to receive 250k USD worth of GLMR votes to be eligible / reach this quorum or participation threshold. The reality is that projects need to receive 250k of GLMR, as a percentage of the 4.5m grants pool. Just a bit confusing and could have been worded better.

The following teams reached the minimum threshold of 22.93% of the vote and will be placed into the on-chain vote:
TFA DAO - 33.118% of the vote - 1,490,302.02 GLMR

TFA DAO only requested 1M GLMR. To suggest that they receive 50% more GLMR than they requested, while all other participating projects receive less than what they requested seems, less than ideal to me.

Lord GLMR and the TFA DAO are really passionate and got out the vote. We all have to give them credit for that. That said, they originally requested 500k GLMR and only increased to 1M GLMR once they were told that they wouldn’t qualify for Tranche 2 ecosystem grants and should apply for community grants instead.

Again, TFA really got out the vote, props to them. Lord GLMR is an awesome guy who genuinely cares about the ecosystem. They should receive their grant funding, but there is no reason that they should receive 50% more than requested.

The second snapshot vote is to distribute the remaining 3,009,600 GLMR.

TFA DAO’s distribution should be updated to 1m and this remaining total should be adjusted up to 3.5M GLMR.

The max amount that can be won is 1,490,302.02 GLMR to ensure no team can win more in the second round than was won in the first.

If TFA DAO’s grant is adjusted down to 1m, then are you suggesting that this cap is also adjusted down to 1m? I personally don’t see the purpose of limiting grants going to other projects who originally requested 2x the amount of GLMR as TFA.

Teams are encouraged to rally their communities to vote on their behalf, but they cannot offer any sort of financial reward to their communities to vote - this includes GLMR, their own native token, stable coins or fiat. NFTs are allowed; as long as these are along the lines of “I voted for team x” (i.e. no “Bored Apes” NFTs worth thousands of dollars, for obvious reasons).

This is an important addition. Moonfit incentivizing people to vote with monetary rewards was… not great.

Each team will then go to an individual on-chain vote and the community will get a chance to approve or disapprove the adjusted objectives.

What is the purpose of individual onchain votes? Why would we not lump them all together, as was done for Tranche 1. Due to the bug, we were already a week behind… now we’re going to be 2 weeks behind with the revote. Why add an additional delay?

5 Likes
8

Did a breakdown to see what would have happened had the 22.93% threshold not been in place.

image
image1959×796 115 KB

Under this circumstance, no one’s GLMR would be “thrown out” by not meeting the cap.

Here’s a breakdown the award pattern with a 5% of the vote cutoff

image
image1973×824 114 KB

1 Like
9

Hey everyone. This post is intended to provide some clarifications, answer some of the questions the committee has been receiving, and address some of the concerns that are being raised.

Is the vote hung? What happens now? Yes, the results of Tranche 2 led to a hung Vote, which means the community could not come to a clear agreement on how to distribute the funds, based on the rules in the Revised Grants Program post. At that point the committee has to step in to resolve the matter - this is the whole reason why there is a Committee: a group of individuals, elected by the community, that advocate for the best interests of the community, without bias. From the original Revised Grants Program:

“If the “Leftover” funds exceed 1.75mm GLMR then the Community Grants Committee MAY hold another snapshot vote with the Eligible Draft Proposal from the first Snapshot vote that did not receive the minimum votes otherwise Leftover funds are allocated to the Community Committee Grants Bucket.”

“In addition, when implementing new processes with new third party platforms, especially as it pertains to governance, there is always some uncertainty and associated concern that this process could potentially be manipulated or misused to misrepresent community desires. Therefore, it is prudent for THE COMMUNITY GRANTS COMMITTEE TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CANCEL THE SNAPSHOT VOTE IN THE EVENT OF EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE THE OUTCOME OF THE VOTE VIOLATES THE PRINCIPLES OF MOONBEAM AND DOES NOT REFLECT THE INTENT OF THE COMMUNITY.”

TFA’s grant proposal asked for 1M GLMR but the snapshot result indicates they should be awarded 1.4M GLMR. Does that even make sense? The committee has heard this feedback and after discussion and agreement with Lord Glimmer who posted the proposal, have decided to cap the awarded amount at 1M GLMR. This means 3.5M GLMR will be available for the second snapshot amount.

Why cap at 1.4M GLMR for the second snapshot? The original intent of the capping rule was to ensure no team could win more in the second round than in the first (which would have led to other concerns and complaints). However, when the committee drew up this contingency plan, it was unclear who would win in the first snapshot vote. Given that TFA DAO only asked for 1M GLMR and they have agreed to not accept more; the cap no longer makes sense. As a result, the second snapshot vote will be capped at the amount each team asked for in their original proposal. Any amount voted over that amount will go to the Community Grants bucket

Why not completely redo the snapshot vote? The core problem that faces the community is that there are 10 proposals with a total ask of 20M GLMR, when there is only 4.5M GLMR available. If the snapshot is redone, with the same setup, it will likely result in the same outcome. The risk of a hung vote was clearly there from the beginning and was called out. It’s unclear that a second do-over there would be a different outcome.

What is the purpose of individual on-chain votes? The second snapshot vote will likely be more distributed and it’s possible that teams get far less than they asked for. Teams will need to create a forum post explaining what they will do with that reduced amount and make a commitment to the community to pursue that new, reduced goal. The community then needs a chance to weigh in on that reduced goal because it could alter whether they want to support it or not. Simply put - this is to avoid a team from saying “I asked for 2M, I got .5M, I can’t deliver on what I promised I would do”.

The committee is making the following changes from the original post:

  • TFA DAO will receive 1M GLMR’s. This means that there is 3.5M that is going to the second snapshot vote.
  • Teams will be capped at the amount they asked for in their original proposal. Any amounts won over that amount will go to the Grants Community Budget.
5 Likes
10

I’m on the same page like @TheTeriyakiDon.dot here.
Seconding his comment.

3 Likes
11

Well, if this really happens, that they dispense with obtaining the grants and that it be re-allocated for the community grants, it would make much more sense.

And after confirming those who accept the amount of the grant despite being less than what is required and adjust their objectives based on that, make a grouped vote, since the proposal fatigue that can be counterproductive

What would happen if a proposal was accepted in the snapshot, but rejected on chain?

12

and the minimum will be $250k for this posible 2nd snapshot vote?, what happens if the minimum is not reached? The funds will go to the comunnity grants funds?

13

In my opinion, those two aspects are rather illogical. In order for a project to be eligible, there ought to be a minimum quorum in place. Simply providing around 100,000 GLMR to someone would have little to no impact on their situation.

14

Hello everyone, hope you’re doing well.

To be honest with everyone, I’m a bit worried about the current situation regarding the Tranche 2 Ecosystem Vote.
Rules were established properly, and despite a technical bug on Snapshot, the community voting process was followed properly. In my humble opinion, rules are needed for a working governance, it’s not only a matter of principles.

I’m a bit biased here, but as a builder I didn’t want to engage my team (The Great Escape) into this grant proposal round, as the fixed 250K $ threshold was quite huge. I saw it as an entrance barrier to the process.

Seeing the turn that things are now taking after the vote happened, I can not help but think that I would have probably acted differently if I had know about it.

Now that you understand my builder’s point of view, I’d like to clarify my personal views:

  • TFA need to go through an on-chain vote to confirm their 1M GLMR allocation.
    I’d like to congrats them for their huge Snapshot mobilization. Still, the initial amount asked by their team was half of the current proposed amount. I have nothing against TFA but that type of amount (1M GLMR) should be taken very carefully and with proper due-diligence.

For instance, previous average grant amount by the Foundation for other games have been around 40k$. I don’t want to judge the sharpness of TFA’s proposal, just want to expose the range for comparison separating this grant from previous gaming grants given.

  • As the vote was hung on Snapshot, why couldn’t we follow the the initial repartition for the Community Committee Grants Bucket and do a new call for proposals?

I don’t really understand why only the 4 projects from the 2nd snapshot would be eligible to funding.The threshold shouldn’t be changed from what had been announced previously. I’d rather cancel this round and give the funds for later grants instead of trying to accommodate 4 teams.

My proposition would be to keep the GLMR left-over from the hung vote, and create a new call for proposals, with adjusted snapshot voting rules from the start and adjusted amounts from the team’s proposals. This method will follow the original rules and may give other projects the opportunity to participate in this ecosystem grant’s round or at least to adapt their proposals to adjusted amounts. This will make everything « cleaner » even if it may delay a bit the entire process.

Tldr: While our ecosystem is growing, 3.5M GLMR is a serious matter and should directly incentive projects that drive the growth of our chain. Hung vote was anticipated by the previous governance rules, that’s why I believe we should respect them. Because of that, my idea would be to keep the 3.5M GLMR for a new round of grants. This round will be adjusted regarding this ongoing situation. While this make things longer, it will be fairer for everyone (teams and stakeholders) and it will definitely sharpen our governance voting system.

Web3 Mobilization takes time and I am sure that we can afford to have the proper pace when it comes to Ecosystem grants.

5 Likes
15

I want to encourage people to read about our proposal before making any comments. Also, we are not happy to discuss again and again; this is quite absurd.
We have the most engaged topic on the Moonbeam forum, even though we are new.
I don’t know the percentage of GLMR holders or community members who use the forum. It’s important to consider the input of both a few people on the forum and the entire community, especially those who voted with millions of GLMR.
This could lead to serious divisions and unwanted conflicts between communities, instead of creating a nice environment where everyone can grow. Let’s focus on unity rather than divisions.
As per Thiago’s feedback, we have reduced the grant amount from 1.4 million to 1 million, which is what we originally requested.
Our transparency knows no limit. Looking forward to the on-chain vote.

Thank you and above is the link to our proposal and 95 comments answers.

image
image1782×705 120 KB

7 Likes
17

Hello everyone,

The committee has gathered and had a long discussion about the results of the snapshot vote and how to resolve the hung vote situation. The committee has taken into consideration all concerns, questions and suggestions it’s received so far, and is performing a structured committee vote about the entire process.

Fourteen key decision points were identified and as soon as possible, the committee will post a full transparency report on this decision making process. This way, the community can not only understand the rationale behind each decision, but also acquire a clear understanding of the process going forward. Of course, as more concerns and questions appear, the committee will do their best to answer all of them.

In light of this structured decision process, the TFA DAO on-chain vote is delayed for now. The goal is to have the decision result posted by Monday 04:00am UTC, at which point next steps will be clear.

9 Likes
18

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.