Fastlane Voting

How is it possible this project has been put through for a community vote without a single post in this governance forum and zero preparatory discussion from the wider community? This process does not appear to follow the expected procedures, and I’m curious why.

The Grants Council has also established a set of procedures designed to provide clarity to proposers and the community regarding how grant applications will be processed and how decision-making on proposals will be handled. Proposers can submit their applications by creating a new topic on the governance forum using the template provided.

Approval Process

Once the proposer has submitted their application, the Grants Council will follow these key stages to review application:

  1. Screening: Applications posted on the Cartesi Forum will be reviewed and discussed by Grants Council and community. Proposers are advised to reach out to the Grants Council for pre-proposal feedback.
  2. Applicant Follow-Up: Within seven days of receiving the application, the Grants Council will provide feedback and follow-up with questions and/or request to schedule a call.
  3. Refinement: Applicants have the oppportunity to incorporate feedback from the Grants Council to refine the grant further. Discussions will focus on final deliverables, milestones, impact of the project, and explore funding costs and negotiate if needed.
  4. Final Approval: Approvals include the Grants Council setting up a vote on snapshot to get the general consensus from the community. Once the vote passes, the grantee can now get to work on their project!

Me.anotone anototorototo

@mhs, it seems you’re referring to the old process, CGP Pilot. The Grants Council has transitioned to using Charmverse, a grants management tool, during Wave 1. You can find more about this in this forum post.

For further details about Wave 1 processes, the Fastlane grant proposal, and the Grants Council’s evaluation, you can find them on Charmverse.

We are also open to suggestions and comments to improve the process.

So just to be clear, three months after posting the CGP rules, the rules changed, and now there is zero community discussion required before a project gets put to a community vote?

What exactly am I supposed to base my vote on if there’s zero public community discussion about the project? How is this transparent?

You asked for comments to improve the process… my suggestion is that you should force each project to hold a public comment period prior to sending anything to snapshot. To put it into perspective, virtually every other aspect of Cartesi is done out in the open. If I want to follow along with the MachineIO meetings and progress, I can do so. If I want to follow Carsten discussing the challenges of working with Celestia, I can do so. If I want to read the recent discussion regarding fraud proofs on EthResearch, I can do so. Prior to this switch to Charmverse, I could also follow along with the open discussions evaluating each proposal, but it appears that isn’t the case any longer.

If you want an informed community, give them an opportunity to be informed. Reading an application on Charmverse is not the same as being able to listen in on other community members’ evaluations and concerns.

I agree with your view that it should be easier for community members to view and comment on incoming proposals.

In Charmverse, you can see all proposals submitted here.
Also, if you’re logged into the space, you should be able to post a comment on each proposal.

I have also updated the notifications setup on Charmverse to notify the community when a new proposal has been submitted. I will make note of this and provide more detailed explanations about this.

Happy to take additional input how to make this process more transparent and looking forward to your feedback on the incoming proposals.

So is this forum effectively deprecated?

It’s not deprecated. The forum is still used for governance discussions regarding CGP and other areas. However, for Wave 1, the Grants Council is utilizing Charmverse for managing the grants process.