Project Eligibility From One Round To The Next

Mechanism Design
1

Project Eligibility From One Round To The Next

We just hosted the first Octant Town Hall, where we focused our discussion primarily on a crucial topic: the handling of project eligibility, rollover, and the overall process for managing projects from one funding round to the next.

The reason this discussion is so important is because we see the need to balance fairness in project funding both for projects that have participated in previous rounds, and also new projects that are just applying to Octant for the first time.

You can watch the full video here on our Youtube channel.

  1. Context setting:
  • Current Process: Currently, projects that rank in the top 50% of each round automatically roll over to the next round, provided they meet their reporting requirements. This system was designed because the onboarding snapshot poll that we conduct would be an absolute mess if every project would have to reapply each round.
  • Concerns Raised: We heard a lot of concerns that this system could entrench certain projects, making it difficult for new or lesser-known initiatives to secure funding (or after every round). There was a sentiment that the automatic rollover could limit opportunities for innovation and diversity in funded projects. I personally agree.
  1. Potential Solutions:
  • Cool Down Periods: One proposed solution was implementing a “cool down” period for projects that have been funded consecutively over several rounds. This would allow new projects to have a better chance of securing funding by limiting how often established projects can reapply.
  • Project Reporting and Metrics: Another suggestion was to introduce stricter reporting requirements for projects that repeatedly receive funding. This would ensure that ongoing funding is justified by demonstrable impact and progress, thus maintaining accountability and transparency.
  • Themed Rounds: A new concept discussed was the introduction of themed rounds. These would be specialized funding rounds focused on specific areas of development or community interest within the Octant ecosystem. The idea behind themed rounds is to encourage innovation and collaboration by directing resources toward particular goals or challenges identified by the community. Themed rounds could bring fresh energy into the funding process, attracting projects that might not have applied in a general round. This approach could also help Octant address specific needs within the ecosystem more effectively, ensuring that critical areas receive the attention and support they need.

Next Steps: We want to continue this discussion here on our governance board to gather further insights from the community. So we are now opening the floor for everyone to continue sharing.

  • Should we remove the automatic rollover?
  • Should there be a cool off period for projects?
  • Should we run themed rounds to get more granular with the focus of each round?

What are your thoughts, I would love to hear them!

2 Likes
2

what are we maximizing for?

if the answer is “fairness”, would challenge breaking that into something less subjective/more specific.

2 Likes
3

I suppose the problem of maximizing for one thing is a challenge in and of itself if we are trying to balance competing interests or ideas. Fairness to two different groups inherently has tradeoffs. Broken out into a more specific thought like you asked, I believe we at Octant are trying to maximize for allocations based upon merit and impact.

  • Equal Opportunity: Ensuring all projects, whether established or new, have a fair chance to compete for funding based on merit.
  • Merit-Based Allocation: Funding decisions are made based on clear, measurable criteria that align with Octant’s goals, ensuring that the best projects receive support.

So this is the challenge right now. Because imo funding is still (partially) being given on a vibes basis / network basis… And so this has been a major reason why I have been looking to onboard as many aligned community members into the next round as possible. But this won’t be something that is solved overnight, which has been the motivation in asking these questions, and wondering if we need to set some guidelines in place until we can feel confident that the rounds alone will align with the above.

2 Likes
4

i think that’s a productive direction. “how can we provide equal opportunities for all projects?” and “how can we administer merit-based allocations?” feel like good first principles questions worth brainstorming a bunch of ideas for. during the evaluation phase, you can consider each idea’s potential for abuse.

off the cuff:

  • “how can we provide equal opportunities for all projects?”
    • blind deliverable round: projects submit deliverable(s) and voters indicate preferences without project/org name attached.
    • maybe a separate funnel for first-time/unproven projects, where they effectively apply for a small grant for a specific deliverable, e.g., $X to build a prototype or host an event which has measurable outcome Y. some purposeful hurdle which helps them along their path, is not free labor, and demonstrates the org’s basic competence, credibility, alignment.
  • “how can we administer merit-based allocations?”
    • stream grants in milestone chunks. good faith efforts are continued. (it’s okay if a goal isn’t fully met; still want to encourage ambitious goals, not sandbagged ones.)
2 Likes