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.