Incentivisation mechanism to right contributors

In reference to this proposal on the bounty for impactful PIPs, I would like to extend this conversation to also think about the fund dispersal mechanism, Maybe it’s worth to discuss on:

  • How will this impact be measured?
  • Will the Polygon team do this review or is it a community-driven initiative?
  • Is KYC flow optimized or will this be done via forms again this is going to be a lot of labor work, So instead I would suggest opening a bounty to build the grants/profile creation dashboard where any kind of application be it a grant or fund, profile of polygon should be mandatory.

This can be the flow:

  1. Singup with email/metamask
  2. Input fields like (Name, Bio, connect socials, GitHub, Why polygon, and Kyc docs(respect privacy))
  3. Create polygon Id (This can help so much in the future when polygon scales)

This should be good for creating a profile, then once they come to the grants/bounty dashboard log in with this profile which will automatically fill in all the details

  • Automation to disperse funds may be via tools like Coinshift, superfluid(Consider if we build the dashboard for grants, then once the status of the grant applicants change to disperse then the system will disperse fund the multisign without so much manual work)

Also, we need to also think of a mechanism to incentivize the contributors on the forum to encourage them to participate more here, ofc this will again have its own pros & cons. I am open to this discussion

1 Like

Hi @ihsotas thanks for opening up this discussion. I think it is crucial for the future steps of funding initiatives, such as the PIP bounty program.
As of now, the rewards are given by Polygon Labs, which needs to comply with certain obligations as described in the Terms and Conditions that accompany the program because Polygon Labs is paying funds as rewards.
KYC is done by the Polygon Labs compliance team.
The review of the submitted PIPs is done on a quarterly basis by the Polygon Labs Governance Team and the rationale behind each allocation will be presented to the community for each selected PIP.

Moving forward to a more decentralized and open process all of your points make a lot of sense. Sign-in with Ethereum can be a helpful tool and of course, PolygonID can help with compliance while the users maintain full privacy of the provided data.

When it comes to the incentivization mechanisms, I believe that the financial incentives are important, and that is what we aim to provide with the PIP Bounty program as we want, ultimately all parts of the community to take ownership of the improvements and upgrades to the PoS and other Polygon protocols. However, I recognize that is not enough as there are other, non-financial, incentives that we are currently lacking and it would be great to start a discussion about that.

Happy to hear your and other community members’ thoughts on the topic :slight_smile:

So these are not public funding goods? Also, just sharing the reference of the Solana earn program here. We can take the inspiration from here

I guess this approach will not get what we are aiming for which is decentralization we need to start somewhere sometime all these points in your reply give me the feeling of centralisation.

To clarify, the PIP Bounty Program is not an open-scope, generalized public goods funding program.
It aims to incentivize contributions in the form of PIPs that aim to improve the PoS chain and, as such, can be considered public goods
For context, it’s focused on proposals that concern the following categories:

  • Core: Improvements to the core components of the network, such as Heimdall and Bor, as well as changes that are not necessarily consensus critical but may be relevant to core components.
  • Contracts: Improvements on core L1 contracts that are deployed on Ethereum.
  • Interface: Improvements around client API/RPC specifications and standards, and also certain language-level standards like method names and contract ABIs. An interface PIP doesn’t require on-chain consensus but may be adopted by the wider ecosystem, e.g., a new token standard.

as well as Informational PIPs.

I guess this approach will not get what we are aiming for which is decentralization we need to start somewhere sometime all these points in your reply give me the feeling of centralisation.

You’re exactly right, we should start somewhere! We have just recently launched the PIP framework, and now we’re already adding incentives on top of it to enable and encourage participation, with the ultimate aim of reaching a self-sustainable governance community.

Due to the nascency of the PIP framework, it is impossible to have an approach that outsources the funds’ allocation process to the community from day one, and that is why we adopted this approach, at the same time hinting at our intentions by providing a transparent overview of the decision-making process.

1 Like