Hey @thiagocastroneves 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 @thiagocastroneves’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?