Community Pool Spending Framework

One of the main factors in driving community activity and adoption of the Mirror Protocol is an active community where users continuously build on-top of the protocol. Proposals for receiving funding currently cannot be effectively engaged with due to the fact that there is no clear framework for evaluation and funding budget. As such, we will make an attempt at outlining a community spend framework. Many of the ideas below have been drawn from retrospection of various community and governance frameworks from other DeFi projects such as Curve, MakerDAO, Yearn, etc.

Summary

The Mirror Protocol holds a store of MIR token in the community pool as a reserve to be used for the enhancement and empowerment of the Mirror Protocol ecosystem and community. The following document will provide frameworks that take the best practices from existing governance procedures.

We propose to split grants into two types: Ecosystem Development grants and Ecosystem Contributor grants.

Ecosystem Development Grants

The purpose of the grant is to empower ecosystem teams to build necessary tools and infrastructure that are not provided at the launch of the protocol. Projects that are value additive to the protocol and/or make user experience better such as the creation of new smart contract applications that enable greater access across more markets or dashboards and other tools for managing their assets on the Mirror Protocol are eligible for community grant funding.

When making an ecosystem grant proposal, the following major criteria should be adequately described.

  • Relation of the proposal to the Mirror Protocol
  • Benefit and impact towards the Mirror Protocol and Mirror community
  • Status of the project (is it in a vague ideation stage or already in production)
  • Profile of team and likeliness to deliver by the described deadline
  • Potential of the proposal (viability, longevity, competition, uniqueness, accessibility, etc)
  • Breakdown of costs (detailed breakdown of the usage of the funds for the proposed project)

Note that the descriptions are intentionally quite vague as the funds are meant to be quite flexible. Existing and completed projects are also eligible to submit proposals for funding if they can demonstrate the accumulated benefits to the ecosystem.

Grants in this category should roughly fall in the range of $1000 to $30,000 worth of MIR tokens.

Ecosystem Contributor Grants

Community grants are aimed at rewarding outstanding users that have significantly contributed to the improvement of the Mirror Protocol community. This category includes users that may have played important roles in shaping the outcomes of Mirror Protocol community decisions, contributed to improving the general level of understanding in the Mirror Protocol community, created content relating to the Mirror Protocol, or helped out other community members.

Grants in this category should roughly fall in the range of $100 to $1000 worth of MIR tokens.

Community Pool Spend Proposal Evaluation Form

Evaluative Questions

  1. Feasibility - Does the project qualification match the current bandwith and needs of the Mirror Protocol?
  2. Dependencies - Does this project rely on other projects or does it potentially interfere with other projects?
  3. Slack - How does the project equilibrium look like once the project grows in size? What is the scope creep risk?
  4. Feedback - Does the suggested project have sufficient feedback or is more discussion required?
  5. Promotion - What is the plan to grow the project and how will the project engage internally within the community and externally?
  6. Resourcing - Which external parties are required to engage with this project (ex. Terraform Labs, Chainlink, etc.)?
  7. Maintenance - Are there maintenance issues? If so, who will maintain the project, and what is the cost associated with doing so?
  8. Skills - Does the project proposer have the required skills and background to be able to successfully carry out the project? Does he/she have a portfolio to cross-reference or evidence to demonstrate capability?
  9. Realistic - Are the project and the plan to execute expedient and realizable within the proposed timeframe?

Required Heuristics

  1. Deliverables Set - A short deck about the project and/or an MVP of a technical product wrapped into a realistic timeline
  2. Budget - The budget should be clear upfront with specific hours or values. Ranges should be avoided. Additional planned proposals for further funding should be also specified if possible.

Review Template

4 Likes

Anyone who is requesting for funds from Community Pool should first have things discussed on this forum. Gathering opinions from the community will not only make the chances for passing the poll higher, but will modify and add details to the original proposal.

I think for proposers who are willing to request funds upon completion of each task / milestone, they should upload multiple proposals, each requesting for partial funding.

Also grant range of 1000$ to 30000$ seems like a wide range. Could this be specified or should we just leave it up to the voter to decide if the grant amount is reasonable?

2 Likes

I think if a budget is included with detailed breakdown of costs, the voter can make an informed decision. Perhaps putting a range here is too restrictive as larger projects can cost much more than $30K.

Agreed with points about gathering feedback here (information link on the governance proposal can link here as well) and milestone payments.

1 Like

For the grant range, I’d like to have to have it specified so that the both technical and non-technical voters can understand the scope and the right amount of funding for the given proposal. It would help them with the voting process, and that’s my 2 cent.