Choosing the Grant Committee Community Member

Hello folks,

We have delayed the Grant Committee conversation to avoid it getting lost in the other on-going discussions but, given we have two proposals already and likely more coming, I think it’s high time we kick it off.

As a reminder, the proposal’s terms were that we have a committee with three members: two from the team and one from the community.

I’m happy to announce that the team members will be @luciotato, representing the Build team, and @btuck, representing Growth.

We had several community members interested in being on the committee, including @dobby and @spleen, so the fair thing to do is to hold an election.

Let’s keep this simple:

  • If you want to volunteer, post here and explain why people should pick you (see this example from @dobby);
  • We’ll give this a week for interested people to sign up;
  • If we have more than three volunteers, we’ll run a forum vote to pick the top 3.

The end decision will be through an onchain vote, even if there is a single candidate. The person selected will get to assign funds from Marinade’s treasury, so it is important the choice gets recorded on the governance process.

If we end up having more than one volunteer, then we’ll create a proposal for each candidate (“Elect Jane”, “Elect Joe”, etc.), with this decision process:

  • For someone to win, the proposal needs to pass (and pass quorum)
  • If multiple proposals pass, then the community member with the most Yes votes on their proposal wins

Sounds good?


Uhm how do we think about CoI?

The audacity of self-nominating for the grant committee, whilst working for a third party company that deals with MDAO at arm’s length?!?

Addtl, what skills are we looking for? Someone who can blast as much spending as possible? Negotiate the best deals? Bolster fairness? Crunch numbers & say no?

(NB: I think incentives with these kinds of committees are usually at odds with the long term heath of a DAO. Really tricky to design, find the right people & implement ongoing oversight.)


If you mean a case like @dobby, I do not initially see this as a problem, particularly given the transparency. Let’s keep in mind that the community member is only one of three votes and would not be able to surreptitiously push things through.

I’d personally suggest that the grant committee should not approve grants to Marinade team members, grant committee members, or entities associated with them. However, even if the committee goes corrupt, we have a veto process.

Then again, if enough people see such a relationship as a problem, well, that’s why we have an election instead of an appointee. :slight_smile:

Excellent question! I’d say the key skills would be:

  • Analytical thinking, because we want the committee to be able to reason through the proposals and extrapolate from them about how Marinade can benefit (as well as potential negative impact);
  • A familiarity with the ecosystem, since they will need to know if there is something similar out there that renders the grant irrelevant, or if what the user is proposing is unfeasible; and
  • Being comfortable saying no and arguing why not, because I don’t expect every grant proposal to be feasible.

Other than that, I’d rather have a fresh perspective than get too strict on requirements.


For the avoidance of doubt, there are absolutely no COIs here. There is no financial relationship between Marinade and Flipside, and we will continue contributing to the DAO regardless of the outcome of this vote. If for some unforeseen reason a COI does arise, I have no problem recusing myself from the decision and being very transparent about it.

I want what’s best for mDAO and I remain excited about the opportunity for all the same reasons I stated before:


I would vote for dobby too and apply for another position if there is more than 1 community member for the seat. We all want what’s best for mDAO.

On why I applied:

  • I have been on grants committee for various web2 fellowship programs.
  • SOL is life and mDAO is home (even though you don’t see me messaging much, i lurk there 16 hours a day :laughing: )

Grants are gateways to a lot of dreams. A good grant program will help kickstart a side project which may or may not become a full-time hustle for the founders and hence benefitting the entire solana ecosystem. What I would see in a grants program is the ability of the teams to have a vision and a feasible roadmap (even though its daunting). You need to have an vision and an eye to look into those technically.

Whether I get to be chosen for the grants program or not, feel free to invite me to any grants discussion (without voting power) and I will be happy to help you design and run the system as well. It’s all about growing the ecosytem and I want to be a story in that chapter.


If you’ll vote for dobby, I think you should participate in all the committee meetings as advisor, with voice but no vote.

  • I have been on grants committee for various web2 fellowship programs.
  • SOL is life and mDAO is home (even though you don’t see me messaging much, i lurk there 16 hours a day :laughing: )

IMHO those are very good reasons for you to be there and be heard. From my side I always try to make informed decisions based on defined objectives (growth of mSOL and mDAO), I do actively try not to be biased (even if it’s not always possible), so I believe that having more voices stating reasons is quite helpful for making informed decisions.


yes ser. I see myself being involved (or want to get involved) in the following phases:

  • Phase 1: Design of the grants system and define acceptance criteria and off-load limits
  • Phase 2: Share thoughts and also be a voice on disagreement or agreement for the applications

For me, voting is just an outcome of the said discussions (the real involvement is). Wish my city / country / work are open-minded enough for me to not be an anon (otherwise I could share the names of some fellowship programs I was part of), but I am happy this community is accepting everyone based on all other discussions related to forum votings.

And thank you for your message as well ser, Advisor looks goooood.


A fairly obvious example would be a grant request by someone that competes with Flipside in some capacity.

By downplaying this possibility, you clearly demonstrate to me that you are unfit for this role.

(Obviously, any contribution outside this formal role is very much appreciated.)

1 Like

Interesting take given that we often collaborate with our “competitors” but I wouldn’t expect you to know this.

In any event, it looks like there will be plenty of action during the community veto period. :slightly_smiling_face:

Have I downplayed it as well? Because the two committee members from the team seem enough for me to counterbalance such an edge case.

Or, to put it another way: do you see a scenario where having two team members and a veto period wouldn’t help sort this possibility out?

I think it makes sense to avoid getting in these kind of situations in the first place. Especially given the recent discussions about CoI with Maker Delegates or the Harmony grants.

Hi @spleen! Can you clarify if you still want to be in the running as well? There’s only one position for voting community member, but from your exchange with @luciotato it seems like you’ll be happy to be an anon advisor.

I was thinking if i lose the vote, I could be on the advisory role. But I guess, I will apply for a second position that may or may not open up in the future. You can take this message as my confirmation for not running for this position for now.

1 Like

+1 Support this nomination for dobby

The proposal to elect @dobby to the Grant Committee has passed with 17.8M for, 18k against, and 1k abstains.

Congratulations - now get to work, gentlemen! :wink:

1 Like

Congrats @dobby on getting selected