General questions about the use of Community Pool

I don’t have the answers but would love to share with you some questions I would consider in recent discussion on the use of community pool. • ICF. Should the proposer first ask for the support from ICF? If yes, under what circumstances? Is ICF suitable for taking a leading role to grant support to the proposal and then the community pool provides a matching support? • Double-financing. Is that possible a proposer has got support from both ICF and the community pool for the same work (or related works)? • Disclosure and monitor. How much disclosures the proposers should make? How the community monitor the progress and result? • Cap. The pool size is limited and it takes time to replenish. Do we need to set a cap for each proposal? Do we need to set a cap of monthly grant? Do we need to set other policies? • Should ICF and AiB employees be eligible to apply for support from community pool? Any restriction or special policies need to be applied? • Validators’ reward. This is another version of double-financing. Should the pool compensate for the works to be done by validators who are supposed to be rewarded through validators’ operation (commission)? • Related…

Excerpt (1199 of 2771 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I don’t have particular answers to the above. However, I think it’s important for the community pool to be sustainable. If we keep granting by directly sending ATOMs from the community pool, it will drain and become empty very fast. Is it possible the community pool itself could run as a validator to make sure the community pool will inflate as the bonded ATOMs? Or could the grant be delegations but not sending out ATOMs directly? I understand that the proposer of a proposal might not be a validator. What if the community pool become a bootstrap grant for those proposal proposers? I wonder how a non-validator would understand the community work and what feature the community want. I imagine there can be 200 max validators by the end of 2020. We can have a lot more validators and we may use the community pool to give a bootstrap delegation grant to those community contributors to become validators.

To be honest, I personally prefer using the community pool on those who really need help. Delegation can help in a longer term and make the pool more sustainable. The projects can still ask for grant from ICF which is totally independent with the decision from the community.

The things you say are too vague for me, there are so many things that I cannot understand at all