Magic Eden Guardians

Community Incentives & Campaigns
1

Magic Eden Guardians

Supporting, Guiding, and Strengthening the Community Fund for the $ME Ecosystem

Summary

The Magic Eden Guardians are a dedicated advisory team focused on helping community members make their proposals stronger, more impactful, and aligned with ecosystem goals. By offering guidance, review, and practical support, the Guardians aim to improve proposal quality, reduce wasted effort, and ensure that the community fund drives meaningful growth for the $ME ecosystem.

Abstract

The Magic Eden Guardians initiative establishes a collaborative oversight team dedicated to the health, sustainability, and transparency of the community fund and the broader $ME ecosystem. We provide guidance, support, and alignment with community goals to ensure that resources are used responsibly and initiatives have the best chance of success.

A core responsibility of the Guardians is to review, refine, and strengthen proposals submitted to the community fund. Through clear standards, actionable feedback, and quality filtering, we aim to reduce incomplete or misaligned submissions, increase the number of impactful proposals passing votes, and strengthen governance trust and community participation.

Motivation

The $ME token and its community fund are vital pillars of the Magic Eden ecosystem. However, several challenges limit their effectiveness:

  • Incomplete or poorly formatted proposals make it hard to evaluate true impact.

  • The sheer number of proposals leads to voting fatigue and unnecessary costs.

  • Community members sometimes vote without fully reviewing submissions.

  • Proposal authors often lack guidance, resulting in low-quality submissions despite good ideas.

  • Proposers deserve a fairer chance to succeed when their initiatives align with community priorities.

The Magic Eden Community exists to empower its members to collectively shape and grow the ecosystem. The Guardians strengthen this vision by providing a structured review and support process that improves proposal quality, aligns initiatives with community goals, and ensures the community fund is used effectively.

Key Terms

  • Community Fund: Treasury allocated to support growth, innovation, and sustainability of the $ME ecosystem.

  • Oversight: Ongoing monitoring of fund allocation, proposal quality, and governance practices.

  • Advisory Committee Review: All proposals requesting community fund allocation must first be reviewed, improved, and supported by Magic Eden Guardians before proceeding to a vote.

Objectives

  • Provide transparent oversight of the community fund

  • Protect the long-term value and stability of the $ME ecosystem

  • Review, strengthen, and support proposals to maximize their chances of passing

  • Reduce the number of incomplete or low-quality proposals submitted

  • Publish regular updates on fund allocation and ecosystem health

Implementation Plan

Phase 1: Framework Development

  • Define proposal review standards, templates, and formatting guidelines

  • Establish communication channels for support and updates

  • Set measurable KPIs for fund oversight, proposal quality, and pass rates

Phase 2: Monitoring & Advisory

  • Review incoming proposals and provide actionable recommendations before voting

  • Offer pre-vote coaching so proposers understand expectations

  • Identify high-impact initiatives and prioritize support for them

  • Track fund allocations and alignment with ecosystem goals

Phase 3: Transparency & Reporting

  • Publish regular public-facing reports on fund use and governance health

  • Share insights via Magic Eden’s community channels (X, Discord, blog)

  • Host community calls to review findings, proposal feedback, and next steps

Benefits / Risks

Benefits

  • Fewer incomplete or low-value proposals submitted

  • Reduced governance costs and voting fatigue

  • Higher proposal success rates through structured support

  • Improved trust and transparency around the community fund

  • Strengthened community participation and engagement

Risks

  • Requires consistent effort and resources for reporting and reviews

  • Market volatility may impact fund growth despite oversight

Mitigation

  • Commit to lean but consistent reporting

  • Provide hands-on support to improve proposal quality and alignment

Outcomes & KPIs

  • Reduction in incomplete or poorly formatted proposals submitted

  • Increase in percentage of proposals passing community votes

  • Positive community sentiment and trust in oversight

  • Engagement with transparency reports and updates

  • Stable or growing $ME ecosystem metrics

  • Number of reviewed proposals successfully executed

Cost Summary

Total allocation requested: 450,000 $ME
Funds are distributed according to each team member’s responsibilities:

Team Member Responsibilities Allocation ($ME)
RS Strategic guidance, fund allocation review, proposal alignment, high-level reporting, proposal review 99,000
Krom Strategic guidance, performance oversight, financial transparency, dashboards, proposal review 99,000
Mathoss Market strategy, economic modeling, risk analysis, treasury optimization, proposal review 99,000
Dögi Technical oversight, governance tool building, NFT/ecosystem integrations, proposal review 99,000
Klet Governance support, proposal review process, community alignment 54,000

Benchmark Comparison – Consulting Rates:

  • Management/strategy consultants: $200–400/hr

  • Data analysts/economists: $100–250/hr

  • Technical consultants/builders: $150–300/hr

  • Governance and communications consultants: $100–200/hr

A monthly commitment of 20–30 hours per member aligns with the $ME allocations, with operational costs embedded.

Performance Milestones (12-Month Timeline)

  • Month 1: Publish first oversight & proposal review report

  • Month 3: Evaluate KPIs and refine review process

  • Month 6: Mid-year assessment of proposal quality, pass rates, and community sentiment

  • Month 9: Publish third quarterly report with updated fund analysis and ecosystem alignment review

  • Month 12: Year-end evaluation of long-term impact on fund transparency, $ME ecosystem stability, proposal success, and governance participation

Quarterly: Share insights, reviews, progress, and next steps

Meet the Core Team

  • RS | Stables – Product Strategist & Community Fund Advisor: Leads proposal evaluations, strategic allocation, and high-level reporting

  • Krom – Data Analyst & Oversight Specialist: Provides analytics, reporting, and monitoring to optimize fund performance and project outcomes

  • Mathoss – Economic Consultant & Market Steward: Brings macroeconomic expertise and trading strategy to optimize treasury management and minimize risk

  • Dögi – Builder & Software Architect: Builds governance tools, ensures technical soundness, and supports oversight infrastructure

  • Klet – Governance & Community Alignment Specialist: Leads the proposal review process, ensuring initiatives are structured, aligned, and governance-ready

2 Likes
3

Feel free to reach out if you have any questions or suggestions!

1 Like
4

I want to raise a serious concern regarding this proposal and I want the magiceden team and entire magiceden community to pay attention to this.

This proposal concerns and bothers me not because the people involved lack skills or history, but because the structure and ask feel extractive and damaging to community trust. It feels almost like a mockery of governance and an insult to the entire magic eden community that the people involved really drafted this without feeling any shame or embarrassment for their greed.

We have seen two great project examples already which shows how powerful the community fund can be:

MagicLabs 295k $ME

Magic Eden Español 100k $ME

Both are real community value projects with clear, tangible outputs.

This proposal is requesting 450,000 $ME (almost 10% of the current 5 million community fund) just to “advise” and gate proposals. This is purely extractive and will affect the confidence of the community on the use of this fund.. The optics matter here and it will be bad if this passes.

Some members of the team that submitted this proposal are some of the biggest stakers and can easily sway votes because they will also likely vote it through with other whales help because those other whales won’t want to offend them so they could also vote for them in other future shitty proposals

It’s disappointing that some of the members are also among the highest beneficiaries of Season 2 rewards and received 6 figures from S2 which makes their greed so embarrassing.

Emotions aside, this proposal will create a precedent where Familia members can pay themselves large grants to “oversee” instead of build. This is how distrust and division and this will be bad for the magiceden community.

Whales vs regular community who feel helpless and watch the whales enrich themselves through ridiculous proposals created to extract value rather than create it which will lead to confidence erosion in governance fairness

Let’s be honest this role that this proposal wants to fulfill iis already filled as magiceden has community Community managers led by Papi, Deji and CWH and they are more than capable of handling this without wasting 450k $me

If the goal is to support high quality submissions, it can be done transparently and voluntarily or for a much smaller symbolic allocation, not 10% of the fund.

$ME price is already down 90%+ since TGE and at this time we cannot afford governance actions that look like insiders rewarding themselves.

We should encourage builders, content, ecosystem growth, and utility, not advisory committees paying themselves six figure token salaries for “oversight”.

For the health of the ecosystem and fairness to every holder, big or small, I believe this proposal should NOT pass in its current structure.

I urge the proposers to resubmit with:

:white_check_mark: Lower budget (max 50k 100k ME)

:white_check_mark: Clear deliverables, not “oversight duties”

:white_check_mark: No advisor salary from the community fund

:white_check_mark: Real measurable KPIs tied to ecosystem growth

Let’s protect the integrity of this fund and ensure it empowers builders and value creators.

Unless the real purpose of this fund is to reward whales in the familia group and ruin the peace and harmony in the community.

This should not pass.

3 Likes
5

Hi Ken,
Welcome to the discussion and thanks for sharing your thoughts!

Let’s look at the actual numbers:

Budget Comparison (at submission price):

  • MagicLabs: 295k $ME at ~$0.60 (submission price) = ~$177,000 for 6 months
    Annualized: ~$354,000/year

  • Magic Eden Español: 100k $ME at ~$0.60 (submission price) = ~$60,000 for 6 months
    Annualized: ~$120,000/year

  • Our Proposal: 450k $ME at $0.40 (submission price) = $180,000/year

In real USD value at the time of submission, we are in line with previous successful initiatives.

What We Deliver:

  • Governance infrastructure and tools

  • Economic analysis and treasury optimization

  • Proposal quality review and support

  • Data tracking and transparency reporting

Critical Issues We’re Solving:

  • Currently, proposals take months to go from submission to vote. We’re streamlining this process so quality proposals move faster.

  • We also optimize proposal budgets, helping proposers avoid overpaying for areas outside their expertise. This means more funding stays with the actual builders instead of being wasted on unnecessary services.

We’re open to feedback on structure and milestones. The goal is faster, better proposals and more efficient fund use.

7

Hi @Dogi I appreciate the respectful tone and that you didn’t become defensive and start attacking me for saying the truth. That’s great but however, my core point remains unchanged.

You referenced MagicLabs & ME Español but this does not justify this proposal.

To be honest those two allocations were high relative to real world pay too but they produce tangible output, build community reach & product value and ship content on steady and measurable impact. The amount they got may be slightly inflated, but they build and deliver and have good tract record way before this funds were announced.

Your proposal sits in a totally different category which is administrative oversight, not product, not community activation, not user growth. You honestly can’t benchmark building & shipping vs reviewing proposals.

Let’s put this in web2 terms and have some real world comparison perhaps this will make you see where I’m coming from.

This is community ops + proposal review

Not product + dev + content + infra

In the real world, 1 to 2 capable community ops hires could do this for $1000 to $2000 a month total, not the huge amount you’re asking for and Magic Eden already employs strong community managers who literally do this today and should do this easily (Papi, CWH, Deji)

So even if MagicLabs/ Español salaries were above market, this proposal is not equivalent work, not critical and most importantly not cost efficient.

And saying oh look magic labs and eden magico got an inflated amount too isn’t a justification, it’s actually exactly why the community needs to push back now before this becomes a norm.

The core issue is value vs extraction

You listed functions like advisory, filtering proposals, oversight dashboards, treasury analysis, coaching proposers, these are nice to have, but not essential and especially for not such a high cost.

And again ME already has community leads and contributors doing this voluntarily because they care.

To ask for 450k $ME for advisory + admin work is simply misaligned with market reality, treasury stewardship, community morale and decentralized fairness of governance process.

Even if you believe in the mission, the cost vs value does not line up and does make sense to me. I’m surprised the magiceden chat is not hitted with discussions against this, which makes me believe it’s probably because many of the other whales also plan to submit or have submitted proposals demanding huge amounts and are afraid to speak against this ridiculous proposal.

Who knows the next proposal might be some random person demanding 500k $me to do something unnecessary.

If the goal is to extract the community funds and ruin this community then by all means go ahead but I hope the community puts an end to this.

There is so much good 450k $me could do for the community especially in such a market that has depleted many for months now. It could benefit the community more than just going into the pockets of a few whales to do some ridiculous project.

450k $ME could be used for weekly community raffles, NFT and PACKS volume campaigns

All of which will grow users, volume, and brand.

This proposal allocates nearly 10% of our treasury to governance admin.

That’s not strategic capital usage at this stage.

We WANT strong governance but earned, not extracted

I am not doubting your skills or intentions, just defending the community fund and I;m only trying to push for a system where builders, creators, and value drivers get rewarded, not one where people closest to governance mechanisms can pay themselves first.

This is not personal, it’s about optics, fairness, and sustainability and I hope @PapiChuloGrim and the magiceden team put a stop to this.

3 Likes
8

Quick clarification: We’re building technical governance infrastructure, economic models, and data systems - not administrative oversight.

On comparisons: You’re comparing 6-month allocations to our 12-month proposal while arguing the work isn’t equivalent. At minimum, duration should be normalized when comparing budgets.

What we do: Governance tooling, treasury optimization, data infrastructure, and ongoing support for proposers through execution - not just pre-vote review.

CM team handles community engagement. We handle specialized technical and analytical functions.

On cost: $15k/month across a specialized team is below market rate for this work.

On precedent: Structured support and data-backed decision making prevents larger waste than 450k $ME. Without it, the fund risks inefficient allocation.

If community votes no, we respect it. But we believe proper infrastructure saves more than it costs.

Open to discussion.

9

well said! in fact one member of the team explicitly said they are here to extract. That doesn’t sit well at all with me. As well as the fact that I myself have gone through the proposal phase with magic lab, and another one of the team members here was incredibly disrespectful about our proposal, non stop trolled, admitted to me they didnt read the proposal even if I sat there and tried to explain how it would work.

I took a lot of time explaining one on one to this person the value of what we were building at magic lab, and they kept , calling us extractors.

I think there are a few amazing individuals on this team, but I 100 percent personally don’t feel comfortable at all with this team being an “oversight” committee for Dao proposals. There are exciting things to be build for this community. Not extract.

2 Likes
10

Thanks for the clarification @dogi but honestly speaking, nothing in your response changes the core issue here.

You’re positioning this as ‘technical governance infrastructure’, ‘economic models’ and ‘data systems’ But the fundamental question is not whether a lot of complex words can be attached to the proposal, it’s whether the proposal itself is necessary and value add at this stage. Right now, it simply isn’t necessary and obviously not cost efficient.

I feel being in crypto space for too long can desensitize us to numbers, but the truth is 450k $me is a lot and a meaningful chunk of the community fund. Spending that on a non essential governance role instead of builders feels misaligned with current community priorities. If we take a step back from crypto for a moment, would anyone in a real world startup approve a $180K/year internal advisory committee?

I still stand firm on my key points that

1. This function is non essential right now. Even if you build advanced tools for it, the value proposition remains that oversight + review + guidance does not justify 450k $ME.

Governance tooling and dashboards are nice to have like I said earlier and I know that yes Dogi you build awesome tools and I know what you can do but this is not a priority and is highly unnecessary and not cost effective. Unless your only goal is to max extract by all means possible that could be the only justification to come up with all this bs.

2. Your cost argument assumes the role must exist at all

Saying $15k/month is below market only holds water if the role is needed and honestly and frankly speaking, It is not needed.

Real corporate and DAO structures prioritise: usage growth, user onboarding, creator funding, product & infra building, marketing & adoption and not internal governance advisory at a 6 figure cost.

3. Comparing to MagicLabs/Eden Magico remains flawed and shows everyone that your main motivation is ‘oh there’s a pot of gold, we deserve some too since everyone is getting some’

Those teams earned trust long before the fund existed and delivered external value. Your proposal delivers internal process overhead.

4. If the goal is efficiency, this is the wrong stage

When governance is young, and user token confidence already fragile,

the last thing needed is:

Administrative oversight teams, or treasury strategists paid huge amounts, or introduce complex internal governance layers that cost a lot.

A Lean cost efficient DAO is priority. Bureaucracy comes last.

5. The ‘protect the treasury by spending the treasury’ logic is weak cos you’re arguing spending 450k $me is a “savings” because it prevents waste later.

That logic can justify anything.

Community funds are not meant for pre emptive bureaucracy. They’re meant for builders first, coordinators much later.

6. The demand side opportunity loss is real

450k $ME could instead drive community volume, support builders & creators, fund devs & content, reward real activity & onboarding, run growth experiments, strengthen ME’s market position and none of that happens with governance consultants even with fancy tools.

If you all truly believe so strongly in this governance tool vision, build an MVP, contribute voluntarily, prove value, earn trust, then request compensation much more later. But in all honesty, this idea is not necessary.

You guys have significant voting power and even if the majority of the community is strongly against this, this vote can still go through but believe me you’re on the path to destroying this community through this sheer display of greed. Haven’t we all learned a lesson or two from the jupiter dao working group and how such unnecessary funding of irrelevant ideas can divide and ruin the community?

This isn’t personal, it’s principle. And the principle is simple. Don’t spend nearly 10% of the treasury on internal governance functions when the platform still needs growth engines, user incentives, and real world value delivery.

But 450k ME for oversight tooling in a growth phase community fund is fundamentally misaligned. The magic eden founders and team knows this, the community sees this and it’s disappointing you guys don’t.

Magiceden is trying to do something great here for the community, please don’t ruin it for everyone.

11

Hi @Ben This proposal is a big insult to the entire magic eden community and it makes a mockery of the governance process. I’m really sad about this as it sets a bad precedent. I’m tired of writing long epistles but I hope the people involved in this sees where I’m coming from and I hope the community rightly shuts this down as it threatens to destabilise the peace and harmony we have going on in this community. The worse is they could still find a way to vote it through because they control a large number of staking power and their other whale friends can vote for them because they all are planning to also come up with extractive proposals. This is bad and needs to be stopped.

12

@Ken This discussion shows why most grant programs combine expert review with community input, evaluating technical infrastructure requires specialized understanding.

The contradiction: You’re defending the fund while arguing against the infrastructure designed to protect it.

The community will vote. We respect whatever outcome they choose. But infrastructure investment isn’t extraction.

Worth noting: This proposal passed Magic Eden’s review process before reaching this stage. That review exists to filter merit and feasibility. :saluting_face:

13

Let me be clear @Dogi

There is no contradiction in defending the treasury while opposing unnecessary spending disguised as infrastructure.

Protecting the fund is protecting the community, and preventing extraction masquerading as governance tooling is part of that defense.

You keep repeating infrastructure but the core point remains unanswered.

Is this initiative essential to ecosystem growth at this phase, or is it just whales/famiiia members allocating themselves a large chunk of community funds?

Your expert review argument actually reinforces the risk because when those who benefit from the treasury also design the structures to oversee and gatekeep it, that is basically textbook governance capture risk.

Saying the community will vote doesn’t hold weight if the deciding power is concentrated among the same circle who stands to benefit. That may be technically fair in on chain governance mechanics, but it is reputationally toxic and community damaging.

Also that the Magic Eden team approved it is not the defense you think it is.

If whales and familia members alone can push through self funding proposals, that raises questions, was this fund truly created to empower builders and the community? or to quietly reward the whales and familia members? and if so, how should token holders interpret the direction of governance?

$ME is down over 92% since TGE. Confidence, fairness, trust, and optics matter more than ever especially in such market conditions.

A proposal that pays a few whales, adds bureaucracy before growth, introduces overhead before builders and creates the appearance of a whale reward circle is not a signal of competent treasury stewardship. It signals poor prioritisation and short term extraction over long term value.

You said the fund must be protected and I absolutely agree. And this proposal threatens it far more than protects it, because it risks. community division, loss of trust, voter apathy among real members, fear of insider self dealing, and negative investor perception. @Dogi You have the skills to build real value. Many expected a builder oriented proposal from you not participation in a governance first allocation to your own group.

This is a pivotal moment for the $ME community.

What happens here will set precedent and define culture.

If this passes by insider votes rather than community merit, the long term damage will outweigh any infrastructure produced.

If you truly believe in the magiceden ecosystem, earn this role by delivering value first through cost effect value delivering projects not by pre allocating value to yourselves from the community fund.

That is what real leadership and community alignment looks like.

Nothing personal once again and trust me, I’m just relaying the thoughts and sentiments of majority of the community and even magiceden team members.

3 Likes
14

Appreciate the detailed response, but I have to ask, why hide behind an alt account to make these claims? Transparency is key if we’re talking about governance and trust.

So far, only two community members have voiced opposition, and no Magic Eden team members have expressed any, so it’s misleading to frame this as a majority view. If you have constructive feedback or suggested changes to improve the proposal, please share them directly, as that would be far more productive for everyone.

15

Hi @Krom please let’s keep the focus on the proposal itself, because whether I use my main or alt doesn’t change the facts or logic presented. This conversation should be argument based, not personality based. A strong proposal stands on merit, not who questions it.

To your other point. Community silence does not equal approval and acceptance and there is another reality that needs to be acknowledged here because many community members are hesitant to voice opposition because they worry that criticising a group with significant staking power like you and your team could hurt their own proposals in the future. It’s not that they agree with this proposal but it’s that they don’t want to risk retaliation from your group. This fear exists whether anyone admits it publicly or not.

My argument remains simple:

This initiative is not necessary right now because It sets a precedent for self reward by governance insiders and certainly does not justify 450,000 $ME

The improvement to suggest here is not modification but withdrawal of this absurd proposal and come up with something better. You have talent in @Dogi and can ship valuable things.

If you really care about advancing the ME ecosystem, not extracting from it, then the right move is simple:

Propose something impactful and cost effective then earn funding and community support. That path strengthens the ecosystem and the credibility of the Familia.

This current proposal risks reputational harm, community division, and long term distrust.

I don’t say this to attack anyone. I say it because I genuinely care about $ME and governance integrity.

Once again nothing personal.

2 Likes
16

You’re making a series of claims that are simply untrue and based on assumptions, not facts. This isn’t governance capture, it’s mischaracterization. Repeating false narratives doesn’t make them real, it just turns the discussion into personal accusations instead of constructive debate.

17

I’m not making false claims or attacking anyone, I’m just defending the integrity of this community fund. My points aren’t personal or emotional and anyone reading this exchange can see that. These are objective governance concerns, not assumptions or narratives.

This proposal is not essential at this stage, and it certainly does not require nearly half a million $ME to execute (450,000 $me to be precise)

I’m here to protect the community’s trust and future, nothing more, nothing less.

And based on the discussion so far, it’s clear this proposal does not demonstrate necessity, alignment, or merit at this scale.

And I stand by that.

18

“Max extract”? “Greed”? “Ruining the community”? “Whales?”

You’ve escalated from governance concerns to character attacks while hiding behind “it’s principle, not personal.”

If you truly believed in your arguments, you wouldn’t need the inflammatory language. The substance would speak for itself.

It doesn’t.

19

I appreciate your commitment to protecting the community’s trust and ensuring the integrity of the fund. That said, it’s important to put the budget in context.

The budget requested here is nearly 50% less than what Magic Labs received:

Magic Labs, Annualized ~$354,000/year (295k $ME at ~$0.60 for 6 months = ~$177,000),
Our Proposal, Annualized ~$180,000/year (450k $ME at $0.40)

It’s also worth noting that nearly 90% of proposals submitted lack the necessary components outlined in the proposal requirements. This is one of the things the Guardians would add value to, helping refine proposals so they meet community standards and have a meaningful chance of success. A prime example is Brody’s proposal: he initially failed the first round but, after reaching out to several members of our team and incorporating feedback, his proposal was polished with robust elements and now has a strong chance of passing.

On another note, I’m still unclear why these concerns are being raised via an alt account. If these are your genuine views, it would carry more weight if stated openly and transparently. No one should ever hesitate to raise questions or voice concerns, thoughtful discussion only helps further strengthen proposals and ensure the best outcomes for the community.

In short, this proposal is about strengthening the proposal process, not inflating budgets or misusing funds. By providing the structure and guidance that so many proposals currently lack, the Guardians help ensure that community resources are used effectively and responsibly.

21

So firstly, where do I start?

How about the 5 person advisory team which incorporates some of the biggest whales within Magic Eden, who stand to gain a pre-vote veto power over all fund requests. Not only does this contradict the decentralised promise of staking and governance, but you’re calling yourself Guardians like some mythical protectors of the $me realm, when in reality it looks like you’re glorified hall monitors looking for a highly extractive paycheck.

Wow! The collective cajónes to be asking for $450k is as admirable as it is ridiculous. It’s straight up grift disguised as “sustainability” and one of your team members has already openly declared that he is extracting with this proposal. Take a bow Gentleman. 10% of the total governance fund for you to become our “Guardians” after you all so heavily criticised “these 100k proposals” deserves a round of applause. Truly, it really does. I remember one of your members calling us “the extraction cabal”. What would you call this??? Pablo Escobar himself would be proud of the level of extraction here. Where is the innovation here?? This is something that prioritises salaries over innovation.

You got somebody there for “strategic guidance,” someone there for “dashboards,”, someone there for “risk analysis,”, “tool building” and “alignment”. I gotta hand it to you, but this really sounds like a Linkedin slumber party. I regularly get people contacting me for advice about proposals, and normally, I just give them my time, the benefit of a read through, some feedback, and advice where I can give it, but damn, I need to be getting me some of these tools and dashboards, and clearly me giving that advice for free doth butter no parsnips! I need to be charging more for that advice, but seriously, why would I need the advice and guidance from you guys, when I can go to people such as Ben and Denis, who have actually successfully passed proposals and ask them for advice, knowing that they will often give that advice for free and from a place where they have shown time and time again that they only want to see the community grow and individual members flourish.

Monthly reports in Month 1, mid year navel gazing in month 6 and a year end evaluation in month 12? What for? How are you going to find a way to fill your 30 hours a week work per person over 12 months? “Regular public facing reports”? Sounds lovely. Sounds like a hell of a lot of padding and waffle is going to be going on here.

“Reduction in incomplete proposals” and “positive community sentiment” sounds very noble but ultimately nebulous - How are you going to measure something that is essentially astrology for degens??? How do you quantify “trust”. We going for a vibe check on X? It just comes across as buzzword bingo with minimum substance.

I’m not sure what “market volatility” and “resource strain” has to do with any of your proposal, but solutions like “lean reporting”, and “consistent effort,” well, gosh darn it, that just sounds peachy doesn’t it.

Comparing your rates to “management consultancies at $200/500hr”? Adorable, but you’re not Mckinsey- you’re a bunch of Solana degens auditing a meme coin grant fund. That $99k per head for a “proposal review” is highway robbery. If you genuinely felt that this is a service you should be offering for the good of the community then you would be doing it for free, like many of us already do.

You admit that the “sheer number of proposals leads to fatigue” and then propose more layers of review before votes. Genius.

Whining about “low quality submissions despite good ideas”, like you’re the gatekeepers of genius and wisdom. People “deserve a fairer chance”. Yeah right! This is just elitist gatekeeping to funnel funds to your favourite projects under the guise of community empowerment. Wake up and smell the centralised power in the “advisory committee” clique. Favours for favours? Cash for questions? Nudge nudge, wink wink. The Guardians of the Galaxy will see you right. Nevermind the insane potential here for conflicts of interest to arise, and absolutely no comment on how you will Guardian against that. Maybe, we should put together another proposal for the Guardians of the Guardians, just to act as a check and balance, but of course the responsibility for that should fall to ten of my closest friends in the space and we want 1m $me to do so. Requiring templates, coaching and, hold on, let me check I got this right because it’s just adds to the Je ne sais quoi of this cash grab proposal – “alignment reviews” (damn that sounds like y’all wearing your big boy corporate pants now), is a dangerous route to favouring polished, connected proposers over grassroots ideas.

And lets talk about that “guidance and support.” I don’t remember that “guidance and support” when it came to our proposals. I remember a lot of personal attacks dressed up as “constructive criticism”, “we were only joking” and “you should be more thick skinned”. What will be different now for $450k? you gonna wrap your arms around me, ruffle my hair, and take me out back to toss some ball together before you impart your wonderful advice? “You know son
..” wait stop. I’m filling up with superman and his dad vibes here.

So for me, and particularly because you seem convinced that I am Ken, regardless of what I say to the contrary, and I absolutely do not need to hide behind an ult account, this is a hard and fast no for me, and if anyone else in the community has any sense, they will also be voting no. I could go as far as what one of your team members did and offer to pay for the fee to vote no if you cant afford it, but that would be a little below the belt.

1 Like
22

I know it’s hard to understand if you think differently, but some people don’t make business decisions based on emotions, they do it objectively and on a strategic basis. Thanks anyway for sharing your opinion

23

The current ME team has a handle on the process. Sure, it may take some time for something to be voted on/pass. But it has prevented from many proposals that would not be good for the community.

Maybe you guys could pitch yourself as assistants to the current team as a proposal and reduce the amount of money/roles and responsibilities you guys are asking for. I think that would be a great alternative!

1 Like