I’d like to create a starting point for a template that custodian proposals can be submitted with that meet the needs of sharesholders. To make sure that I’m including all of the right sections / content, I would like to have this peer reviewed by the team to make sure that nothing is missing.
Required Content for a Custodial Grant Proposal
Type (Dividend, Liquidity, Hybrid, Social, Development, Marketing, etc…)
Requested Amount of NBT
Custodial Fee (% / Amount)
Terms of the Grant (Detailed description of the grant’s purpose, operation, intended outcome)
Am I missing anything? If not, I’ve got a proposal that I’ll be submitting, and will submit it in a format that I believe can be a starting point for the template. If there are additional sections that the team feels are needed, or if what is described above contains information that is not needed, please let me know.
@ben, I think this is a good start. What I’m missing is provision of how the funds spend on the grant are tracked and reported back to the shareholders. This can be under 5 or 6, would prefer under 5 given the importance I would assign to it.
e.g. way of publication of list of transactions, receipts, real-time, once a month, on request, on website etc., conversions to other crypto/fiat etc. Imagine that some proposals would require almost nothing of that (e.g. can be found in blockchain) where others would need a decent administration and scrutiny to ensure everything is done properly.
Given that apparently shareholders may vote for different amounts than the requested amount, I also suggest the proposal includes a bandwidth on when a certain vote would be considered a yes during counting. Example: Voting yes for $1 for a grant of 100k is practically a no as it will be unlikely that any outcome can be achieved. Clarity upfront will help with voting and counting the votes, instead of uncertainty afterwards whether a grant should be provided.
I understand that this might complicate the voting process, I would rather see a protocol change where you can’t vote for different amounts, for or against vote, no greys.
Just my views, open for comments and looking forward to your proposal Ben.
I don’t think that “Type” is necessary. We either provide a fixed list of types, or we let these category emerge as we go on . Not important at all for a prospect custodian to set a “type” imho. The type is something we, as shareholder, can assign.
Toghether with a unique ID. (think the same custodian requesting the same grant after a few months from the first, we need to distinguish those two)
I like the 5) and I think we need to provide additional guidelines/template. If we only write terms it can be anything. We should split this field in sub-fields , for example : grant request description, why do you think is important, why should we believe you, when do you expect do deliver, Conditions under which the custodial grant contract can be considered completed (or failed) , track records…