Thanks so much for raising this important topic - and encouraging the community to share their feedback. A few ideas:
What types of public goods do we want to fund?
If we want to support a few well established projects with large amounts of ongoing funding, then we should employ certain mechanisms.
If we want to help kickstart many experiments with small amounts of one time funding or help grow medium projects with small amounts of ongoing funding, then we should employ other mechanisms.
That’s a big question - one for Golem Foundation, the Octant team, and the whole community.
It seems like Octant currently leans towards the former option. The minimum funding threshold helps entrench well established projects in two ways: less established projects do not receive matching funds (less funding to become well established), and less established projects are forced to reapply for the next round (more admin burden).
Personally, I lean towards the latter option. I value the work of established projects, but I think we will have more impact in the long run by encouraging and funding many experiments. I also see some well established projects with massive war chests and many small / medium projects struggling to survive.
Which projects in an Epoch should receive matching funding?
My gut feeling is that every project eligible to receive matching funding should receive it. But I would be interested in seeing the numbers. Would it be possible for Octant to share the matching funding amounts for Epoch One with and without a minimum funding threshold?
Which projects should be eligible for the next Epoch?
There seem to be 3 options. A project can be automatically rolled over, asked to re-apply, or be prohibited.
So far, the discussion has assumed that well established projects should be automatically rolled over and less established projects should be asked to re-apply. But I am not convinced we should make that assumption.
One option: We could impose a cap on matching funding per project per year. Well established projects could receive a certain amount of matching funding (in one or more Epochs) and then “graduate” from Octant for the year.
Second Option (mentioned above): Projects could self-impose a cap on matching funding per year. Projects could receive that amount of matching funding (in one or more Epochs) and then “graduate” from Octant for the year.
Third Option: We could prohibit all projects in one Epoch from applying for the following Epoch.
Fourth Option (mentioned above): We could have a different theme for each Epoch. GLM stakers who are not interested in the theme for a particular Epoch can assign the yield to their wallet or send it to the Golem Foundation to be distributed as matching funds in future Epochs. Over time, we may be able to measure the level of community interest in various themes by seeing what percentage of yield is donated to projects in each Epoch.
All of these options would clear more Epoch spaces and free up more funding for less established projects.
How many projects should be in each Epoch?
My gut feeling is that 24 projects is just right - small enough so GLM stakers can research all the projects, but large enough to keep it diverse and interesting.