For Discussion: Funding Council Direct Request Format

Funding Council Direct Request Format

To give guidance on funding a position or product that was not contemplated at WG inception and/or has no current funding source.

Current Examples Include:


  1. Get community approval for product or position via forum poll, or WGL approval
    a) WGL approval sufficient pending FC approval
    b) For forum poll, 75% majority via forum contributor poll as threshold for advancing to FC review
  2. Send form with approval to FC for review/approval (via forum post flagging FC members):
    a) APP (Approved): Funding approved as requested via contributor form
    b) RR (Revise & Resubmit): Back to requestor, with comments to be addressed and resubmitted
    c) AAN (Approved as Noted): Approved, but there are comments from the FC that modify the request
    d) REJ (Rejected): Rejected. Reasoning should be provided by FC; IIP required to fund
  3. FC may ask questions within the forum and directly to the requestor, any clarity should be ported to the main post; question-response process is informal and does not reset the clock on the approval timeline
  4. FC to review and formally respond, via forum comment, within 7 calendar days
  5. FC to mark forum post title with appropriate response (e.g. - "APP:FCDR - Contributor Newsletter - mel.eth)

NOTE: Should an AAN approval modify the request to an extent that the requestor feels it no longer serves the intended purpose the requestor may state so in the comments, pull the request, and request funding via IIP. Modifying the amount of the request for funding should not be grounds for AAN approval; this would be grounds for RR or REJ status. Approval of a FCDR does not guarantee that funding will occur, as the required/promised result will be the basis for the actual reward given.

Format should be in that of a WG or Product proposal, but should also include:

  1. Title in forum post should start with “FCDR” (Funding Council Direct Request) followed by the title/nature of the request, and the requesting contributors name (this is the contributor that should be funded) - e.g. “FCDR - Contributor Newsletter - mel.eth”
  2. An explanation of why this request falls outside of the current WG funding structure (will typically relate to a lack of funding within the WG as it stands, or that the proposed product or position is sufficiently cross-functional)
  3. Link to forum poll or WGL approval (via comment on request that approval is granted)
  4. It should be made clear if the funding is intended to bridge a gap until the next WG funding request, or if it is an ongoing standalone product or position (e.g. - “Contributor newsletter will be funded on a per-issue basis until such time that it is deprecated; no planned WG funding; reward to be adjusted quarterly via forum sentiment poll and updated via FCDR form submission if the agreed amount changes.” or “The Governance Rep position will be funded via direct request only until the next POCWG funding request on xx/xx/xx”)
  5. The amount, denomination, and frequency of requested funding should be explicit (e.g. - “Newsletter to be rewarded at 9.95 INDEX per issue to be funded in aggregate on a monthly basis during the standard reward cycle”
  6. With the understanding that the FC is not responsible for onerous verification, each request should explicitly state how the requestor will demonstrate that the task has been completed, product delivered, or position adequately filled. The burden on the FC should be no greater than a typical contributor rewards request. For example: “The contributor newsletter will be posted to the forum daily; rewards sheet will link to posted newsletters.”

Next steps:

  • General discussion including forum poll threshold to advance (75% proposed) - thru 8/27);
  • Review and acceptance of this method by FC (by 8/31).

Flagging current FC members for visibility and expeditious feedback: @dylan, @Pepperoni_Joe, @DarkForestCapital, @gregdocter

1 Like