Thank you Bobby for the kind consideration and the apt response. Sharing the learnings from the experience of setting up Polygon and Compound Grants Program to throw some more light on this aspect.
In the context of single vs multiple domain allocators:
- The decision-making has to be unambiguous. What if there are scenarios where one domain allocator approves the project and the other doesn’t? This opens up the possibility of applications falling under the “no-result” category,
- The decision-making has to be quick while being decentralized. The concept of choosing one domain allocator for the community is to strike the balance between speed and decentralization Having more than one DA for the same domain, increases the TAT - the current process ensures 48 hours of TAT. We also feared a potential friction between the domain allocators during a disagreement, hence we have a very clear distinction of the scope of the domains and the decisions of the domain allocators.
- Single Point of Contact: The communication to applicants is very clear right now at CGP because the domain allocator is the single point of contact for their proposals. Didn’t want to disturb this approach, while it was working.
- One of the strongest learnings we had from evaluating some failed grant programs was the diffusion of responsibility and reduced accountability, wanted to absolutely avoid that.
Just to be clear, we are with you. We need multiple allocators given enough individual budgets, and clear scope of their domains and decisions. As you said, it is best to evaluate this approach in the future after accommodating learnings from this quarter too. 