Re-Funding The Cosmos Hub Grant Program

Hi all, I’m submitting the following because I completely understanding the argument of “Too much complaining, not enough proposing of alternatives or revisions.” I would also like to make clear that I do not think any of the issues I will raise here were created out of malicious intent. Far too often I think it’s easy for perspectives to be misaligned, and for people who hold different positions in a larger system (i.e. cosmos) to see things differently when it comes to how to best do things and accomplish shared goals. This does not mean anyone involved doesn’t have the best intentions in mind. That being said, the following is a revised version of the recent proposal for funding of a Cosmos Hub grants program. This is how I, as a community member first and foremost, would have liked to see something like this brought to the public discussion in future. I will blockquote (the format this text is in) my own changes and input throughout, and will denote my comments with a & bold text , and revisions with “…” Again, I thank those in involved for getting the ball rolling on something important like this, just as i admire the community who have called it out in its current…

Excerpt (1196 of 23365 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Your insights are much appreciated, but why did you make a new thread for this? It’s hard enough to follow along in a single thread

This felt close enough to a brand new proposal that it felt warranted. Replies make more sense for discussing individual points. An entire revision felt better suited to its own new post.

I love the idea of forking and modifying and the ethos of action that is behind that, but I am concerned with the approach of feedback and the implications it has on already strained governance processes (from the standpoint of time, feedback consolidation, gathering sufficient input, and building on the input of others). My reasons for encouraging it to be posted within the same thread as the other proposal are the following: • What is the end-game of this proposal? Is this purely feedback? Are you planning to put this proposal on-chain? It’s unclear how this relates to the 60 or 70 something messages and thoughts that have gone into the original proposal . • This approach isn’t scalable. If everyone that has suggestions or feedback takes this approach, we will end up with an unmanageable discussion process. The best ways to provide document feedback is via tooling that is designed for that function and includes both versioning controls and some sort of voting / rating mechanism for suggestions. • The revised proposal doesn’t include significant revisions that might warrant a new thread. In my mind, significant revisions indicate an entirely new premise. Such a premise…

Excerpt (1199 of 2044 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Curious also to hear what others think as well. I should certainly post a link to this with some info in the original. But i just felt that due to the annoying way this forum handles replies, it would just add to the clutter of the original. If you could actually reply as part of a collapsible thread i would have done that.

I can’t work out if this is an alternative prop or suggestions for the current one. I don’t really mind either way because I think your formatting etc is really helpful and as I said to you on twitter I absolutely adore the idea forking a prop if you think it improves it. I am going to address the point re myself here now as it is the most obvious one I can answer! However if it is a fork and you want elections please do just make me a candidate, I 100% don’t want to be treated differently to anyone else just because I am a community member and the role isn’t signing txs. The role firstly focussed on building the website. This involves creating the brief, sorting the hosting, approving the wireframes, sitemap, dashboard tooling, designs, writing the copy or getting the other DAO members to create it. The two month timeframe for this is fairly ambitious. Secondly it is about interfacing with the community. That is mainly be on socials, providing updates on proposals received and grants issued but also listening actively to the community and using those conversations to inform the thinking of the reviewer committee. Thirdly keeping a tracking document of expenses which can…

Excerpt (1197 of 2133 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Hey @TendermintTimmy I have read the entire message. It’s thoughtful, detailed and full of interesting insights. I do not agree with all of it but I do want to thank you for taking the time and trying to improve the proposal.

However, I do agree with @ala.tusz.am that your message should be in the main thread, not as a separate topic.