Hi @wijuwiju, thanks and happy to contribute. Being mindful of conflict of interests, I should say we (Revert) do hope to go after some of the analytics grants/bounties, which seems a good fit for what we do. Our experience with Uniswap Grants Program has not been great, as we have not even gotten feedback with regards to our applications, even after repeated requests. One of my goals in contributing to this initiative would be in looking to making it more transparent, accountable, and to minimize discretionality in assigning treasury funds.
Im glad you took the points into considerations. If you are able to reduce the proposal to a smaller amount…lets call it a pilot program and have it up for reevaluation, then you have my vote.
I think its fair to call for a more cautious initial approach after the last few votes.
But until then, I remain highly skeptical. I think it would also be more efficient not to dump the UNI, but try to find a way how to generate yield with it…but the part with the yield financing is just a huge plus. I´d not call it a necessity compared to the earlier points.
Thank you @msilb7 for chiming in, given your personal experience as an analyst I really appreciate your thoughts here. Some quick comments/questions:
On goals: I like the way you frame the program and we obviously agree about the need for more experiments in that direction.
On Structure: I see what you mean regarding structuring it as an RFP where analysts apply and wait to be approved/rejected before they begin to work as a way of avoiding duplicated work. My question here would be how does the selection process work so that it’s fair and transparent? Some community members have already raised their concerns in that direction and I think it’s a valid one. For instance, with such a system, how do we make sure that the selection process is transparent? And how do we make sure new analysts have as much of a chance to contribute as more experienced ones?
On Budget/Submissions: we can probably think of a submission as the answer to a committee request, broadly speaking. This way the system is flexible enough such that a value-add written analysis of an already existing dashboard is also a valid submission if it’s in line with what the committee is asking.
Regarding the number of submissions, we’re also not sure if 200 is too much but bear in mind that here we’re expecting for duplicated work to happen and for several submissions to receive a bounty for the same committee request, if that makes sense.
Looking forward to your comments!