Peeramid labs: Research grant for DAO novel token mechanics

[peersky]

Project Abstract

This document is a research proposal focused on decentralized autonomous organizations (DAOs) and Polkadot's ecosystem.

It aims to investigate the limitations of current DAO governance, explore interoperability, and address challenges within the Polkadot ecosystem.

The research will delve into decoupling governance from speculative investment, utilizing privacy-preserving techniques, and improving participation rates through merit-oriented protocols.

The methodology includes literature review, community surveys, and data analysis. The expected results are a refined research paper, deeper understanding of DAO governance challenges, and potential contributions to the Web3 community.

The team has experience in decentralized governance and blockchain development, and the project is currently in the initial research phase.

The research findings will be shared through publications and presentations, with the long-term goal of enhancing DAO governance and contributing to a more secure and participatory Web3 ecosystem.

Grant level

• Level 1: Up to $10,000, 2 approvals
• Level 2: Up to $30,000, 3 approvals
• Level 3: Unlimited, 5 approvals (for >$100k: Web3 Foundation Council approval)

Application Checklist

• The application template has been copied and aptly renamed (project_name.md).
• I have read the application guidelines.
• Payment details have been provided (Polkadot AssetHub (USDC & DOT) address in the application and bank details via email, if applicable).
• I understand that an agreed upon percentage of each milestone will be paid in vested DOT, to the Polkadot address listed in the application.
• I am aware that, in order to receive a grant, I (and the entity I represent) have to successfully complete a KYC/KYB check.
• The software delivered for this grant will be released under an open-source license specified in the application.
• The initial PR contains only one commit (squash and force-push if needed).
• The grant will only be announced once the first milestone has been accepted (see the announcement guidelines).
• I prefer the discussion of this application to take place in a private Element/Matrix channel. My username is: @_______:matrix.org (change the homeserver if you use a different one)

[github-actions]

CLA Assistant Lite bot All contributors have signed the CLA ✍️ ✅

[peersky]

I have read and hereby sign the Contributor License Agreement.

[peersky]

recheck

[keeganquigley]

Hi @peersky thanks for the applications. I have a few initial comments:

• Your GH repo appears to be private. Would everything under the grant be open-source?
• User survey collection isn't typically covered under the W3F grants program and could be removed.
• How would the current Polkadot OpenGov system benefit from a multi-token model?
• Are you aware that Polkadot already has built-in conviction voting?
• I would argue that Polkadot governance is already pretty novel compared to other EVM off-chain voting mechanisms. It's not clear to me exactly what you'd be researching for the paper part? And how will it benefit our current governance model?

[peersky]

Hi @peersky thanks for the applications. I have a few initial comments:

• Your GH repo appears to be private. Would everything under the grant be open-source?

• User survey collection isn't typically covered under the W3F grants program and could be removed.

• How would the current Polkadot OpenGov system benefit from a multi-token model?

• Are you aware that Polkadot already has built-in conviction voting?

• I would argue that Polkadot governance is already pretty novel compared to other EVM off-chain voting mechanisms. It's not clear to me exactly what you'd be researching for the paper part? And how will it benefit our current governance model?

thanks @keeganquigley for your prompt response to our application.

• Link had typo, my apologies for that. Our repository is indeed open source and so are the papers available there. Im fixing link, would that require squash commits again?
• Understood regarding surveys, we can remove it
• This research will focus on multiple aspects that may be used to deepen polkadot governance decentralization and autonomy by proposing way to enhance fellowship program.
• Our research conviction voting is touching different aspects of governance processes from Polkadot implementation. We discuss ability for participants to demonstrate repeatedly their conviction to same proposal within changing alternatives and context. This may be used to select the proposals to vote on in case of limited origin capacity to process proposals, or to indicate conviction of fellowship members.
• Currently fellowship rank upgrades are handled by approvals of higher scoring rank holders and hence depends on those actor availability. Our research will focus on how to setup constant flow of fellowship from DOT holders, trough something we can coin as conviction election, alternatively (and/or) it may be used to establish flow of fellows to specific origins expertise. Even if taken out from context of fellowship problem, the proposed research may be used to help DOT holders to identify competent actors to delegate to their tokens.

[keeganquigley]

Thanks @peersky for your answers. In my opinion I think this kind of research should be funded by the treasury and community, so I won't vote to approve it as is. But we'll see if others disagree.

[peersky]

Thanks @peersky for your answers. In my opinion I think this kind of research should be funded by the treasury and community, so I won't vote to approve it as is. But we'll see if others disagree.

@keeganquigley I've updated our application, focusing more on Polkadot fellowship program specifically. Perhaps this can change your mind.

We've changed the following:

• Focused scope of our work more about fellowship centralization & collusion risks
• Clarified differences between conviction voting
• Rescoped our work on surveys. We did not find any ongoing research about technical fellowship centralization metrics, so we added this.

From my perspective, it seems perfectly fit to this grants program, as it's research and due to anti-collusion RFP relevance.

The only concern I have at this moment is that if technical fellowship centralization metrics research is novel and needed, then perhaps we should submit it as a separate item.

Looking forward to your feedback!

[keeganquigley]

Thanks @peersky for your answers. I will mark the application as ready for review. The Polkadot Fellowship is mainly funded via the Polkadot treasury, which is why in my opinion, fellowship research should also be funded by the treasury, as the community may want to have a say in it. Additionally, the W3F grants team doesn't really have any say or insight into their operations. So it's hard for me to say if this research would be helpful for the fellowship, or if they would be interested in it.

I would also argue that the fellowship isn't really a DAO in the traditional sense. While they have some aspects of self-governance, it doesn't have complete autonomy like a typical DAO. The fellowship consists mainly of technical experts, making its role more advisory and focused on technical matters, rather than general governance. So for example, any changes to the fellowship structure, such as the ranking system, would need to be proposed in an OpenGov referendum and approved by the community anyway. I recommend checking out the fellowship manifesto if you haven't read it.

So while I don't disagree with you that the fellowship may have certain limitations that could be improved, I'm not sure we should fund it. I suppose it would be interesting to hear from a fellowship member regarding this application. So I won't approve it yet, but will leave it open for comment for the rest of the committee.

[peersky]

Thanks @peersky for your answers. I will mark the application as ready for review. The Polkadot Fellowship is mainly funded via the Polkadot treasury, which is why in my opinion, fellowship research should also be funded by the treasury, as the community may want to have a say in it. Additionally, the W3F grants team doesn't really have any say or insight into their operations. So it's hard for me to say if this research would be helpful for the fellowship, or if they would be interested in it.

I would also argue that the fellowship isn't really a DAO in the traditional sense. While they have some aspects of self-governance, it doesn't have complete autonomy like a typical DAO. The fellowship consists mainly of technical experts, making its role more advisory and focused on technical matters, rather than general governance. So for example, any changes to the fellowship structure, such as the ranking system, would need to be proposed in an OpenGov referendum and approved by the community anyway. I recommend checking out the fellowship manifesto if you haven't read it.

So while I don't disagree with you that the fellowship may have certain limitations that could be improved, I'm not sure we should fund it. I suppose it would be interesting to hear from a fellowship member regarding this application. So I won't approve it yet, but will leave it open for comment for the rest of the committee.

Thanks @keeganquigley for the explainer.

I now better understand your point about the Fellowship's connection to the treasury. However, I'd like to emphasize that our research has a broader scope than just the Polkadot Fellowship. It's a general-purpose investigation into DAOs and progressive decentralization, a challenge relevant to all platforms and crucial for the future of collective coordination. This wider lens is our team's primary motivation.

While the Fellowship may not be a traditional DAO, it represents a step towards decentralized governance within the Polkadot ecosystem. This makes it a valuable case study for our research, allowing us to examine real-world implementation challenges and contribute to a better understanding of DAOs in practice.

As shown in the Grants Program repository diagram, our research clearly falls under the "Research" category for W3F grants. It could even help bridge the gap between W3F and the Fellowship by providing valuable insights into its structure and potential improvements.

We also acknowledge the diagram's guidance on approaching the Fellowship and treasury for practical implementations. Once our research identifies potential solutions, we intend to actively engage with these communities to explore concrete applications and contribute to the development of more effective DAO governance within the Polkadot ecosystem.