Based on fairly impassioned conversations in TrueFi Discord and on the forum alike, it seems that there’s a pretty strong desire among at least a portion of the TrueFi community for a TRU budget directly aimed at marketing/educational activities. These might include AMAs, influencer collaborations, video explainer production and other non-obvious ecosystem grants like, say, securing a conference sponsorship or funding a hackathon.
This Idea thread will seek FIRST to gather input on, and AFTER substantial discussion, eventually propose a design for governance-directed ecosystem grants, denominated in TRU from the Community Treasury, targeted at marketing outcomes.
Our guiding questions in this discussion:
- How do we align incentives between TRU holders, TrueFi users, and grant recipients?
- What other projects have a high quality community grants process from which we should learn?
What this discussion is not:
To date, TrustToken Inc has been reasonably aggressive with spending company TRU in the pursuit of growing awareness, and is continuously ramping up these efforts. This thread is not to discuss TRU-funded marketing efforts to date (ie how much was spent, or on what).
It’s also not to receive feedback on how TrustToken Inc spends its discretionary TRU on marketing efforts - plenty of room for that conversation elsewhere.
This thread is also not an attempt to respond to the token economics discussion - if we all arrive on a design for this pool we like, it should be compatible with any allotment of TRU.
What this discussion is:
Instead, this thread is to discuss how the community might spend the TRU allocated to a governance-directed TrueFi Protocol “Community Treasury” that has yet to be finalized.
Designing a Marketing/Ecosystem Grants Methodology:
I think any grant methodology should fulfill a number of simple but important mechanics:
(1) Transparent - the grant design should emphasize consistently clear understanding at the level of the system (“Here’s how to apply - 4 easy steps”), the grant seeker (“Here’s what I propose, here’s why I think it’ll work, here’s how I’ll report results”), and the community (“Here’s what we do and don’t like, here’s what we think it’s worth, here are the KPIs to which we’d like to keep you accountable.”)
(2) Accountable - the grant design should build in some type of performance indicators to which the community and the grant-seeker mutually agree, and, in my opinion, by which the grant should be tranched (on milestone A, unlock tranche 1 of 4; milestone B, unlock tranche 2 of 4…)
(3) Appropriately Lucrative - Those making a big impact on TrueFi should be richly rewarded. I believe they should also be exposed to the price action of the asset in which the grant is made. As such, I believe grants should be made in TRU, not in $X USD of TRU.
(4) Long-term Aligned - In my opinion, paying an influencer for a single video is not a good use of a grant. Giving that same influencer, bug bounty hunter, or crypto educator a locked TRU allocation tied to the success of the platform is a good use of a grant. I’d propose these unlocks try to optimize for substantial milestones for the platform as a whole, such as $X of TVL, Y # of wallets holding TRU, and that each grant is made with a substantial time frame in mind, such as 3-12 months.
(5) Simple but Robust - A good grant design system should have creative constraints (ie available grant sizes, available types of requests, standard KPI requirements) that make it easy for nearly all community members to substantively opine on the proposals. At the same time, a good grant design system should not be so rigid as to exclude creative, new proposals.
I’d love to start the conversation by learning which projects (ideally crypto DAOs, but not necessarily) have a sound grants process. I’ll post one of my favorite suggestions to start us off.