Hi everybody! Definitely support!
2 Likes
Hi Everyone,
I’m sharing an update for the Arbitrum Grants program Arbitrum Grants Program administered through Delegated Domain Allocation was launched on 5th October, 2023 and I am pleased to share the following updates with the Arbitrum community regarding the status of each proposal:
Program Overview:
- Total Proposals: 151
- Total Proposals approved: 43
- Proposals by domain
- Approved Proposals by domain
- Gaming: 11
- New Protocol Ideas: 10
- Dev Tooling: 10
- Education, Community and events: 12
- Grant Amounts committed by domain ($) - $603k
- Gaming: 173K
- New Protocol Ideas: 128k
- Dev Tooling: 129k
- Education, Community and events: 174k
Overview of Accepted and Funded Proposals
New Protocol Ideas Domain
- Clique & On-Chain Gaming Identity - Growing Arbitrum’s Gaming Identity Layer
- Funding approved for: 15k
- RFQ-API manager for Pear Protocol
- Funding approved for: 15k
- Proposal to Enable critonopix for Arbitrum Projects
- Funding approved for: 10k
- Amelia the Arbitrum AI Copilot - Chat Based Assistant
- Funding approved for: 8k
- Smilee LP & IG Simulator with IL Hedge
- Funding approved for: 8k
- Deploy and grow Mountain Protocol USDM on Arbitrum
- Funding Approved for: 25k
- Arbitrum Governance Tracker
- Funding Approved for: 9.5k
- Sweep n Flip | NFT Dex
- Funding Approved for: 7.5k
- One Click Crypto: Aribtrum Public Yield Explorer
- Funding Approved for: 22k
- Giveth
- Funding Approved for: 7.5k
Dev Tooling Domain
- Infrastructure Support for Arbitrum One & NOVA in Dev Tooling Domain
- Funding Approved for: 13k
- Laika - Request Builder for Web3 in Dev Tooling Domain
- Funding Approved for: 12.5k
- Agnostic AA for Arbitrum
- Funding Approved for: 12.5k
- Bonadocs
- Funding Approved for: 10k
- Bytekode - AI Intent Layer for dApps
- Funding Approved for: 11k
- Increase of Arbitrum Exposure in LATAM
- Funding Approved for: 8k
- Enhancing Arbitrum Ecosystem Analytics with DeFi Teller
- Funding Approved for: 10.5k
- JiffyScan: 4337 UserOp explorer supporting Arbitrum One and Testnets
- Funding Approved for: 13k
- Arbitrum Python SDK
- Funding Approved for: 20k
- Stylus VS Code Extension
- Funding Approved: 18k
Education, Community Growth and Events Domain
- Onboarding of New developers in Education domain
- Funding Approved for: 9.5k
- Arbitrum Academy
- Funding Approved for 19.5k
- Arbitrum as Official sponsor of Ethereum Mexico
- Funding Approved for: 5k
- DeFi Africa - Web3 Buidl Workshop
- Funding Approved for: 9.75k
- Metrics DAO: Web3 Analytics within Arb ecosystem
- Funding Approved for: 20.5k
- Blockchain Innovation Hub: 3 month bootcamp for Developers
- Funding Approved for: 16k
- Arbitrum STIP Virtual event marathon
- Funding Approved for: 6.25k
- Arbitrum Aeturnum Program
- Funding Approved for: 18.85k
- Arbitrum Arabic
- Funding Approved for: 14.025k
- Arbitrum Deep Dive Quest Run
- Funding Approved for: 17.5k
- Atoma Project + Arbinauts + Cryptoversidad Collaboration
- Funding Approved for: 22.25k
- web3 Warri Arbitrum Universities IRL Events
- Funding Approved for: 15.15k
Gaming Domain
- Chess.fish - Chess on the blockchain
- Funding Approved for: 13.5k
- FPS: “Frags”
- Funding Approved for: 5k
- Smithonia: MMORPG
- Funding Approved for: 25k
- Gold Inc: Mobile MMORTS
- Funding Approved for: 25k
- ethersource: Realtime idle MMORPG
- Funding Approved for: 24k
- Spire: on-chain lore fo rthe web3 gaming era
- Funding Approved for: 17.5k
- Gaming Chronicles
- Funding Approved for: 3.3k
- Kaiju Cards: RPG, Character Collector and roguelite deckbuilder in one
- Funding Approved for: 22.5k
- Land, Labor and Capitol (LLC) - onchain tycoon game
- Funding Approved for: 18k
- Sponsorship of the Gaming Startup Collective’s Monthly Calendar of Events
- Funding Approved for: 6.9k
- Chaquer- Fully On-Chain RTS Game
- Funding Approved for: 12k
We’d love to get feedback from the community here on the proposals that have been accepted, and any of the other proposals that have been posted on Questbook. Happy to clear any doubts about the program, or proposals, either from Questbook or the domain allocators.
2 Likes
Hello community,
I am reaching out on behalf of the Questbook Arbitrum grant committee to explore a possibility and get a temp check from delegates.
The current program, while financed and managed in ARB, provides grant and has operational cost denominated in USD. This has created a few ups and downs in our internal accounting, especially for one reason: grants that are approved now might take months to reach the milestone.
This has reflected as well in the whole timeline of the program: it started, in April 2023, with the request of $1M as a budget and ARB being worth around $1.20.
It got then approved the 6th of July 2023, when ARB was worth $1.13, as we can see from the Snapshot voting
The funds that were transferred from the foundation in the end were 800,000 ARB one month later, the 7th of August, worth at the time $908,000
As of now, the current remaining budget after 3 months of the program is of 583,823 ARB, worth, at current price of $1.76, around $1.03M.
At the same time, in the four domains, we committed overall $726,500 in future grants. We will also have a cost, for the next quarter, of around $92,500, between salaries and other expenses (like the KYC provider).
We want to explore the possibility to convert in stable 30% of the current ARB in the 5 safe, or around 175k. This will help us having more stability to ensure that the assigned grants will be indeed respected. We are looking to get the feedback from both the community and the delegates.
On the actual execution, assuming the general feedback regard the idea is positive, we have not yet established how the conversion would happen. The goal is, of course, to minimise any impact in the market. As of now, defillama is showing a slippage between 0.15 to 0.35% for a bulk 175K arb sale; It could make sense to either swap it in trances of around 50-60K each twap it in a certain amount of time.
8 Likes
I would support the conversion. It seems like the responsible thing to do.
8 Likes
Is there any error in calculating the grant amount?
What is Questbook Arbitrum Grant Committee, is it passed by proposal? And does it comprise of Program Manager & 4 Domain Allocators only?
1 Like
Yes, the right number is the one of Srijith. I have put the numbers together by just looking at the total, but in the end there are a few more in mines (either double applications, or applications that were approved but would not proceed with the grant and so on). So, the correct number is the one that is tracked by the PM.
On the grant committee of questbook: as you can see by the proposal linked in the first topic, is made by
- A PM that oversees the program
- 4 different domain allocators, of which each one is responsible for a single domain.
1 Like
Not only do I fully support, but I’d also share that we considered this as well. In discussion with the foundation, they have the ability to support our conversions. I’d recommend reaching out to @cliffton.eth
1 Like
This also sounds like a reasonable thing to do. No need to throw the grantees into insecurity via price fluctuation.
This does raise a question for me if in future grant funds should we fund in ARB? OR should we fund in USDC. At the moment the price movement has moved favorably for Questbook, but it could have easily (and could still) move aggressively against Questbook and other programs holding ARB.
2 Likes
This is lovely to know ser, will reach right away!
2 Likes
This is an interesting consideration. And yes could have gone both ways, we were lucky in the end.
What you ask is more of a broader question.
It’s less important when the grant is related to incentivization (like in STIP for example), but still relevant.
Is way more important in grants in which the sum has to be spent for development, marketing and other expenses that are usually accounted in USD terms. Something to reflect for the future.
3 Likes
About the Delegated Developer Tooling Domain and TLDR
The Delegated Domain for Developer Tooling has focused on projects that empower developers, fostering a robust and accessible system with a two fold mission:
-
Fill crucial gaps: This includes essential infrastructure for network interaction, documentation for broad accessibility, and developer tools focused on tackling challenges like Layer-2 centralization, security, and user adoption.
-
Spark innovation and prepare developer-based products for sustainability, business models and venture funding: We have seen proposals for cutting edge applications drawing inspirations from established protocols, AI, and infrastructure that is ready to take a step forward in innovation. The Delegated Domain for Developer Tooling has also prepared grantees for pitch deck reviews, meetings with VCs and accelerators with 1:1 mentorship sessions, building a robust business model, and asking the hard questions that can make this project sustainable in the long run.
Based on proof from grantees and constant iteration with them we have had successful grantees who have been accepted to the Consensys Fellowship, secured interviews with OrangeDAO’s fellowship, and prepared fully-fledged pitch decks for a token or equity raise with web2 and web3 VCs.
Evaluation Rubric:
The proposals were polished during the first quarter of the grants program and have established a solid foundation on our four main evaluation rubrics:
-
Addressing developer and ecosystem needs: Demonstrate a clear understanding of the pain points experienced by Arbitrum Developers and propose solutions to directly address them.
-
Novelty and relevance: It has to be aligned with growth objectives and metrics based on demands for the following product.
-
Feasibility and clarity: An initial well-rounded plan with realistic milestones, concise and explanation and future aspirations for the project was critical for decision-making inside the diligence of the grants program.
-
Team expertise: Relevant experience and skills from the team or solo-founders was key in instilling confidence that the development of this grant and its continuation is in good hands.
Domain Overview:
- Number of proposals: 34
- Accepted proposals: 10
- Committed funding: $128,520 USD
- Number of milestones in total of all accepted proposals: 30
- Milestones completed: 14
- Funding disbursed: $55,000 USD
| Proposal name | Committed Funding | General description and what have they been up to? |
|---|---|---|
| Laika - Request builder for Web3 | $12,500 USD | Postman for Web3. It works as a way to interact with Smart Contracts on the most friendly UI we have seen in possibly some time – combination of Remix, Postman and Etherscan ‘contract’ section. Laika has already finished the first milestone and is working on closing the scope for the grant. Previously the company has been incubated by accelerator programs and with an easy-to-grasp deck they are ready to head out and raise a successful pre-seed/seed round. Also enabled Laika to be open-source and pushed a PR from non-core Laika team and community for end-to-end testing. |
| Infrastructure Support for Arbitrum One and NOVA by ShapeShiftDAO | $13,000 USD | ShapeShift DAO proposed integrations in Frontend, Backend, Documentation and integration inside their Multichain Bridge (with an added value to bridge from Arbitrum to Bitcoin). ShapeShiftDAO has been the most fast-paced integration in the Delegated Developer Tooling Domain with already finishing the integration (including decentralized RPCs) on both Arbitrum One and NOVA. Currently Arbitrum One is already available with leading assets on its multi chain bridge and demo, while Arbitrum Nova has already been deployed in its testing environment. |
| Agnostic Account Abstraction Dev Tool for Arbitrum One and NOVA | $12,500 USD | This team has developed previous crypto companies and applications in Latin America. During an ETH Global Hackathon the team built account abstracted wallets to be onboarded on-top of WhatsApp. Similar to how TON enables wallets in Telegram – with the difference of a bigger and broader user-base. Team has already completed its first milestones integrating initial smart contracts and closing a deal with a WhatsApp business provider being MessageBird enabling them to onboard the wallets while following Meta’s strict policy on crypto products and services. |
| Bonadocs | $10,000 USD | Building a collaborative way to promote integration of smart contracts from different protocols. It started as a Postman for Web3 – similar to Laika. Later pivoting into a Google for Arbitrum Smart Contracts enabling the search and integration of smart contracts from distinguished protocols while enabling it to be read, deployed and simulated through a direct fork of Arbitrum One mainnet. We are pretty impressed by Bonadocs work in the last quarter, with its grant coming to a close and being accepted into the Consensys Fellowship opening the doors for up to $1.5M USD in funding from Consensys Mesh and participating in interviews for this cohort of the OrangeDAO fellowship. With the right mentoring, Bonadocs can easily reach a successful raise by Q2-Q3 2024 with significant growth metrics and adoption. |
| Bytekodes - AI Intent Layer for dApps | $11,000 USD | Bytekodes is leveraging AI to create an intent layer for Arbitrum. Imagine if ChatGPT could interact with the blockchain and you can send a prompt like ‘swap 20 USDC for DAI and supply it into Aave’. Bytekodes has successfully advanced into its final milestones while also polishing their pitch deck for a pre-seed raise and having interviews for the OrangeDAO fellowship. |
| Espacio Cripto - Increasing Arbitrum’s Exposure to the LATAM Developer Community | $8,000 USD | Espacio Cripto is LATAMs HUB for all things crypto-related with a strong focus in governance, account abstraction and most recently Layer-2s. Abraham and Lalo both the founders of the community, have previously worked for unicorns like Bitso, platforms like Bueno and Payment Infrastructures like KillB. Espacio Cripto also has previously been supported by now members of the Arbitrum Foundation. While it has been our only DevRel approved grant proposal, Espacio Cripto will be used as a guideline and foundation for other DevRel proposals who might apply for the Delegated Developer Tooling Domain. For this grant proposal we have negotiated articles, reports of the meetups and on-chain attestations that includes how many developers were previously in the Layer-2 ecosystem and who are joining to start developing in the ecosystem. Some of the milestones Espacio Cripto has and why they are fit to lead the DevRel category in the Delegated Developer Tooling Domain: Espacio Cripto’s community grew significantly during the last months. Went from having 556 to 1,669 community members in Telegram 1 in the previous year, a growth of 295%. This is an active group with an engagement of more than 25% (readers and writers). Went from having 51 episodes to 225 as of November 3, 2023. It produced more than 250 hours of educational content. Has more than 115,000 downloads in the last year. According to its 2022 Spotify wrap, it was in the top 10 podcasts for +23,000 people, top 5 for 17,000 people, and top 1 for almost 6,000 people. According to Spotify, it was in the top technology podcast in Mexico for 198 days in 2022 |
| DeFi Teller - Enhancing Arbitrum’s Ecosystem Analytics | $10,520 USD | DeFi Teller is building a Yelp for chains and protocols. With a ‘trust don’t verify’ principle the grant covers general fixes and enhancements for their website, database, analytics tooling and user reviews. The team is pretty well-versed with experience in technical background and previous editors in the journalism space. The integration covers support for One and Nova (TBA). Team has already updates pretty much all front-end bugs and enhanced data and parsing to capture metrics from relevant protocols in the Arbitrum Ecosystem. |
| JiffyScan: Block Explorer for Account Abstraction (EIP-4337) supporting Arbitrum One and Testnets | $13,000 USD | An Etherscan for Account Abstraction. Arbitrum One and Testnets (Sepolia and Goerli) have already been deployed. Aditya asked for this grant to cover for infrastructure and upscaling costs in a growth-based grant while he prepares JiffyScan for an enterprise pricing model and a seed round raise. First milestone has already been disbursed and completed. Waiting on his growth reports to disburse next grants. |
| Arbitrum Python SDK | $20,000 USD | Mert is developing a Python SDK for Arbitrum its a 1:1 replication of the current Arbitrum TypeScript SDK including Python native modules for asset bridging, mata entities, messaging, and utilities with the goal to enhance developer accessibility and integration capabilities within the Arbitrum Ecosystem. This proposal addresses a clear need for the ecosystem as Python is one of the most used programming languages. While old, it is still pretty relevant in consumer, business and enterprise ecosystems. Mert has previous experience building grant proposals of this scope and has stellar recommendations from grant programs like Aave, Filecoin and Polkadot. |
| Stylus VS Code Extension | $18,000 USD | Tolga is developing a Visual Code Extension for Stylus on Arbitrum. Offering a Project Management suite, enhanced coding experience and document for its VS store release. Tolga’s proposal addresses a clear need for the ecosystem as the talk of the town for developers has recently been Stylus. Projects and extensions like this help improve current developer experience, adoption and focus on providing more open-source commitment. The development of this extension was approved due to previous experience and recommendations from grant programs like Aave which have mentioned how great the experience working with him has been during its grant timeline. |
Things to improve and conclusions:
The Delegated Developer Tooling Domain has been powering progress! We’ve seen a surge of high-impact projects, attracted exciting new proposals, and established a robust framework for growth. While a few overlaps surfaced from Questbook and our own programs, it’s a testament to the vibrant ecosystem blossoming on Arbitrum!
To build on this momentum, we’re excited to unveil two initiatives:
-
Streamlined Adoption & Expansion: We’re crafting a new RFP document and grant application template specifically for experienced teams building within the ecosystem. This will open doors for innovative use cases and proven business models, ensuring our funding reaches projects truly ready to make a splash.
-
Sustainable DevRel Support: We’re committed to nurturing long-term success, not just initial momentum. For DevRel proposals, we’ll explore attestation models for successful onboarded projects, workshops, and practices that empower them to flourish beyond grant cycles.
The future is bright in the Dev Tooling Domain! We’re thrilled by the horizon-expanding proposals emerging, from Chronicle Labs’ open-source oracles to Mountain Protocol’s RWA wrappers and Dhive’s governance HUB. These solutions hold immense potential to strengthen the Arbitrum’s growing DeFi ecosystem, transparency and engagement in Arbitrum’s governance-driven landscape.
On a personal note, our ambition is to witness one of these promising protocols secure venture funding or a successful token raise. Early-stage incubation programs like those thriving on other L2s, such as Celo’s Celo Camp, are crucial for our ecosystem’s growth, and that’s a goal we’re passionate about pursuing.
We’re energized by the possibilities ahead and eager to hear feed from the community. Onwards and upwards! 
6 Likes
Juandi has guided us through the whole process and follows up on a regular basis in case we need support. Thanks to Juandi and Srijith for their work with the teams we are building in Arbitrum. 
2 Likes
A huge thank you to Juandi for guiding and providing feedback to the ShapeShift team as we continue to enhance and build out a more robust Arbitrum One and Nova support inside the app! Looking forward to the ways that ShapeShift can continue to onboard users and provide value to the Arbitrum Ecosystem by providing a first class trading, earning, and portfolio management solution.
Nova is currently live in-app and is behind a feature flag as we finish testing and UX!
2 Likes
Juandi consistently leads us throughout the entire procedure and regularly checks in to offer assistance as needed. He’s really supportive throughout the process of the program.
We are grateful to both Juandi and Srijith for their efforts in assembling our teams within Arbitrum.
2 Likes
Sharing the observations about the Questbook Performance in the last quarter based on observation and interaction with builders. Thank you @krst for the review and encouragement.
I would like to make it clear that my intention in exploring the details of this program is solely to encourage potential enhancements through open discussion. I hold no negative feelings or animosity towards the Questbook team. I hope to witness them manage this program to the utmost standard.
Following are four pain points that if addressed can lead to better clarity and long-term success of the program.
If not using Rubric was mentioned anywhere is public, please ignore this point. I am currently not aware of that and expect it as part of the proposal says so.
As mentioned in the proposals KPI & other discussions, rubrics were to be an important objective way of evaluating a project especially when approval is centralised.
These rubrics are missing for every project that got approved or rejected in the New Protocols & Ideas Domain.
Without using a rubric it is just a bureaucratic approach and not transparent.
Several projects have received their first comment from the domain allocator after a month.
Domain:- Arbitrum New Protocols and Ideas
Submitted on:- 06 Nov, 2023
First Public Comment:- 06 Dec, 2023
TAT:- 30 days
Final Status:- Rejected
Let’s increase Arbitrum’s exposure to the LATAM dev community
Submitted on:- 03 Nov, 2023
First public comment:- 25 Nov, 2023
TAT:- 22 days
Final Status:- Approved
In the Arbitrum Education, Community Growth and Events domain the TAT was always 24-48 hours for the first public comment. In the Gaming Domain, the few proposals that I checked had a TAT of 1-5 days. No complaints about these domains.
In fact, how can this be achieved in all domains? Most Allocators have mentioned in their nomination form to be able to keep TAT by 48 hours but did not implement it. Even a TAT of 5-7 days should be fine.
Rationale:
First public comment can give a lot of confidence to new applicants that the process is agile. And most importantly, it was said to be done considering that the benefits are far better understood by QuestBook than anybody else.
The current total paid out is ~$150k.
Total Admin cost for the quarter is ~$90k.
Paid out ratio to admin cost looks very expensive. I understand these will be paid out in future but if the period of DDA’s is over how will the follow-up on milestones be ongoing?
The above metric if provided will allow a better understanding of what needs to be addressed. For example, reaching out to the accepted teams to enable them to complete their milestone on time. Currently, there are no initiatives on those lines.
For most projects, the communication happens off the Questbook, which defeats the purpose of using a platform. In many proposals the Accepted reason is mentioned as the conversation happened over the call in the last few weeks/months.
This can be improved further by keeping most questions public(even sharing a recording of the conversation over call) or hosting an open office hour which can be attended by any community member to increase transparency.
Personal Opinion
With the performance in the last quarter in each domain, I agree with the suggestion earlier made of having at least two DDA or two DDA’s for two Domains and the rubric of both should be above a set benchmark for approval.
The counter provided earlier for not having a multi-domain allocator was not seen in action.
Having presented my observations, I strongly believe addressing these issues and accountability the QuestBook program can remain a vital part of ArbitrumDAO in the long run.
1 Like
I only speak for the Education, Community, Growth and Events Domain, led by @cattin in which I collaborate.
On the part of the education domain is all public, anyone can enter right now to the discord channels and review our forum with the talks held with each applicant and also most of the questions are on the QB platform.
It is detailed in this report
5 Likes
Hey Blueweb!
It’s great that you brought up proposals that had a high TAT. In the case provided through the “Let’s increase Arbitrum’s exposure to the LATAM dev community” we previously spoke with the Espacio Cripto’s team through channels that are able to get a faster response aka Telegram/WhatsApp. Espacio Cripto and Developer Tooling Domain’s conversation started since October 24th and through feedback of the initial application it got submitted on 3/11.
Through diligence and feedback from not only the domain but from members of the Foundation who helped us polish this proposal we later stepped back with Espacio Cripto to discuss about possible on-chain attestation to measure how many developers attend conferences related to this topic to provide better attestation with the community and governance. Eventually, modifying the budget, milestones and of course the final scope and metrics of the project.
For several projects extra due diligence is required as the delegated domain signs a grant to see if the scope is possible based on what have they currently built (repositories, pitch decks and overall assessment and follow-up questions).
I do appreciate the feedback and of course taking the time to ask the important questions about the future of this project. Still diligence is something that is done behind the scenes and sometimes requires certain tweaks to the proposal so we can review it and commit to accept it or reject it.
Taking your comments as solid feedback, and previously mentioned in our report we will add a new TAT in our new RFPs for different types of proposals depending on how complex the evaluation takes and to ensure better transparency we can start providing ‘minutes’ from the meetings and diligence calls so we are all up to date on how this proposal was reviewed and the evaluation criteria.
Any other questions please feel free to let us know.
Onwards!
4 Likes
So, let’s go point by point on this one.
All the evaluation has been done through the rubrics. What is actually lacking (and you are right on this) is me filling the platform, which is something I will do these next few days. Thanks for reporting it, and is right and fair to report everything in public as it should be in a program like this.
While all the motivation, for both approval and refusal, are always expressed in the comment of every proposal, the proper usage of the platform is indeed important.
Just for reference, my internal spreadsheet.
Ser, you sure you have all the information there? While that is actually the first comment in there, it does not imply that the first contact was that day. Matter of the fact, had the first contact with Abhilash few days later.
Actually, while the application was rejected, we brainstormed a few good ideas, and we are still in contact so I can provide him my feedbacks, despite the application was rejected.
Oh, also, one of the reason why the application was rejected is that it came from the one of the Questbook member: since the idea needed some development (was initially thought to use options, i suggested to integrate perps which is what the team is working) and there was a possible conflict of interest, I decided to decline it after hearing from @Srijith-Questbook which gave me total freedom of choice.
Need to also add that, in general, more than half of the protocols contact me directly in telegram because my contacts are available in the google doc providing guidance in the program itself. They want to discuss, understand if they are a fit for the program, understand how to do the proposal, if their idea is correct and so on.
This also means that, sometimes, when a proposal is published, I have actually already spoke with the team (for a lot of time sometimes) and the lack of a public comment doesn’t mean that there was no contact.
the total current paid out should be (i say should cause I don’t have numbers at hand right now) 90,000$ plus another few K for the KYC provider, with the 90,000 being 3 months of salary for the group (5k for each domain allocator, 10k for the pm). It might have been for 4 months to so eventually is 120k. Again no numbers at hand.
What was paid, is not what has been approved tho. We are a program in which you first reach the milestone, then you get paid. As it should be.
So far, we have committed in the 4 domains around 675,000$ on top of the 150,000$ that was already paid. So, based on your ratio, is a 10% cost on top of the granted amount.
Seems good to me to be honest.
So, you are saying I should provide the recording of the calls I have had with the protocols I spoke to, some of which are up to 5h each? I mean, yeah, is doable, but who is gonna hear them?
Also, do you REALLY think that a conversation can only happen through comments in a platform?
I ask projects to talk to me about their project, to show me their platform. How can this just be solved through text conversation?
Now, I obviously take full responsability for not filling up from the spreadsheet into the platform. It was an oversight on my side due to me not knowing the QB platform properly, and this will be fixed as I said. Thanks for pointing this out.
And please, if you have any other question, post it here, I am available for whatever discussio
Would just like to make just one question, since you posted the following, all for the sake of clarity of motivation of all parties in this discussion.
Can you confirm that you are indeed part of the WeathHedge team, that applied in my domain, and was refused, and that than contacted me again in dm to ask to rethink about my decision despite my feedback, public, in the application?
Just need an answer to this, and again this is just for the sake of clarity, so that everybody can see what are the potential motivations here for everybody.
Now, as closing stance, a TLDR
- I lacked in posting the reviews, for both approvals and denials, not only in the public comments of every proposal but also into the rubric section of the platform. This was an oversight on my part and will be rectified.
- a lot of the stuff posted (delay in answer and others) don’t take in account how most of protocols just directly contact me through my public contacts that are published in the docs and template of the program in the questbook page. This means that, while there might be no public comment directly, there can be a contact. And, indeed, some protocols just jump the gun and contact me, several times, before publishing, to understand if their application would fit this program
- would like to state something that should be obvious but apparently is not. As domain allocators, we are currently capped by 15h/week in our job. I can’t speak for my colleagues directly, but personally i tend to break the roof of this cap every week (pretty sure tbh it happens for them as well looking how much they work). Doesn’t mean anybody gets paid more for what it matters. But you also have to understand that, sometimes, we just need to back off some requests, and move them in the queue, because our allocation is limited and fixed in this program. This is one of the limitation that we want to address potentially for the future, and while everybody is committed to give as much time that is needed, sometimes we just need to respect this cap, to avoid being engaged by protocols that, understandly, just want to have a contact as fast as possible, have a proposal evaluated as fast as possible, provide corrections and documents and data as fast as possible, and iterate this process as fast as possible
- please, if you can provide meaningful feedback on how the improve the current program, in my domain or in others, continue commenting here. While I am pretty sure there are several things to improve, I am getting a lot of positive feedback, both from protocols and external parties, and while these helps, also knowing what either doesn’t work or is just perceived as not working can help me and all the team make everything better.
3 Likes
I confirm that I was supporting the team for the project. Also, I was the one encouraging them to apply to QuestBook program, I am sure that is how we can grow the ecosystem.
I also learnt from them that they did not get to have any conversation or any rubrics shared which left them with real feedback on going back and improving on what they are trying to achieve.
To clarify on the dm part, It was encouraged by me to ask in public which they have on QuestBook which went unanswered and it was more of an appeal as the Rejection was awarded without a single conversation with the team.
Also, if you see the questions asked they are on what can be improved to not let such devs go away and see the transparency the program has to offer.
1 Like
Ok, maybe we will indeed get somewhere with this conversation.
Let’s give the readers some context.
I gave a direct feedback, both in questbook and in DM, about the PMF of the product. Which is: PMF is not there, imo. Because, despite the growth, the amount of trades in weather future is totally minor in traditional finance market and thinking about bootstrapping that in crypto in which we don’t even have a proper unified framework for options is really really utopian.
Now, back to us. If you are telling me that is more convenient to give a feedback directly in relationship with the rubrics, this is something that we can discuss and work on.
In my feedback, I try to be crystal clear to explain what does work and what does not. I tend to not be too tied to formality, because I want to be able to communicate the bulk of the idea: usually, when a proposal does not work, it is mainly for a specific reason. Solving that reason, if possible, solves 80-90% of the problems. For this, I try to not attach myself to classification too much, but I try to be more direct in analyzing what does not work.
If the community, and especially the protocols, feels like the feedbacks are not clear enough, it is for sure possible be more “formal” in terms of rubric. I personally tho don’t think it would help protocol better understand where should they start working to improve their proposals tho. But is doable for sure.
In this answer I didn’t quote specifically the rubrics. I tried to be clear enough saying that 1) PMF for weather future is not there 2) PMF would be there for other asset classes.
I personally found strange that a team does not understand this answer. But I can also understand that others might not have the same viewpoint as me, so a different communication methodology might be needed.
For this, thanks, will reflect on what you posted.
2 Likes