Builders Ecollective Third Round of Funding

The Builders Ecollective is a sub-DAO created to address the issue of sound infrastructure proposals being bottlenecked and halted at the proposal stage due to the existing Eco governance framework. This proposal maintains support for the suggested solution, which calls for routinely transferring funds to the Builders Ecollective from the Eco Community Treasury.


In order to ensure that the community treasury is utilized to fund projects over time, and to actively engage and encourage talented community members, the Builders Ecollective funded projects that produce value for the community. Our latest grants have gone to:

Eco Culture Development in Thesandbox Metaverse - We can see many brands from artists, crypto projects, web3 people, the game industry, and more. Already own Land in the sandbox and they develop experiences/games for their community. This is a great opportunity to grow our community.

Supervisor Functions from 0x46…8944 (Dec '22 - Mar '23) - Incentive system for Supervisors to support the importance of effective governance in ensuring that updates and changes to the system benefit the entire network.

Giftcard/Game bots Proposal - With these games, we hope to encourage some friendly competition within the ECO community and the larger Discord ecosystem.

Council kit - Grant request - Council Kit research and experimentation as an all-in-one on-chain governance framework for the Layer 3 (L3) Ecollective.


The Builders Ecollective asks for a third round of funding worth of 1077053 ECO tokens to be allocated to our multisig Safe. The Builders are currently having discussions with community members and are considering some potential applications for additional grants.

  • Administration and operations costs
    • Description: Operational costs incurred by Saulo between January 27 and August 9 for deploying Safes, setting Snapshots, acquiring ENS domains, paying fees to execute Safe transactions, and more.
    • Budget: 94553 ECO
  • Sandbox Experiences
    • Description: Development of the 2nd Eco metaverse experiences in Thesandbox, publishing for the game experiences to LAND in late Q3 2023 in order to introduce, onboard, educate and collaborate with the ecosystem.
    • Budget: 250000 ECO
  • EAS resolver
    • Description: Research and vulgarization about Ethereum Attestation Service (EAS) and resolver fees.
    • Budget: 218750 ECO
  • Bounty & Builders’ mission budget
    • Description: Builders Ecollective will identify and define the specifications for small scoped development projects with an impact on the ecosystem, such as Dune dashboards, discord bots, or small dApps.
    • Budget: 150000 ECO
  • EcoTip
    • Description: EcoTip is a non-custodial crypto wallet service with a bot operator that bridges the gap between centralized service providers and decentralized networks, to offer end users participatory culture and interoperability, but also access and ownership to their own data.
    • Budget: 256250 ECO
  • Charmverse
    • Description: 1-year plan for Builders’ Charmverse
    • Budget: 7500 ECO
  • Developer Advocate Role
    • Description: 2 months trial for a technical evangelist and liaison the developer community
    • Budget: 100000 ECO

About Builders Ecollective

This collective aims to speed up the uptake and expansion of the Eco network, to support a robust ecosystem of scalable apps, and tools, among other products. Proactively interact with inspiring and talented community members by seizing the momentum of a growing community with enthusiastic and motivated builders.

Website | Docs | DAO | Discord


I fully support a third round of funding for Builders Ecollective, they bring immense value to ECO and should have all the resources they need to continue developing various products.


Great team! I love your plans!

1 Like

What it is “Developer Advocate Role”?

Have you tried to click on the link applied on this text from whithin the proposal.
It goes to a chamrverse page explainning exactly that and more

Yes, I saw it later, thanks - I’m reading.

After going through each of the points in the proposal in as much detail as I can, I realize that all of the things listed are important and useful for development of the Eco protocol. I wish success to the Builders ecollective in achieving their goals.

1 Like

I will write to the builders right away. I have a certain level of trust. The guys have shown themselves positively at conferences. They always answer the questions that interest me. I think there are no questions here - full support always.

1 Like

I shared my thoughts on this proposal on the Builders Call this morning and am re-hashing them here for visibility.

TLDR: This EGP submission is not at a bar — yet — where I would be comfortable voting for it on behalf of the Association & the delegations made to us by stakeholders.

By the way, I’ve been on Builders Calls recently where parts of this proposal have been discussed, so I know there is much deeper thought behind the proposal than what’s laid out in this post, but it needs to be summed up and justified in more depth for a funding request of this size and scope.

In short:

  • Backward-looking: The “Past” section doesn’t sufficiently summarize what went well and what could have gone better in the past, and where the Ecollective stands today. I would like to see more of a retrospective, and one that is quantitative where possible. Which of these efforts have accrued value to the protocol, and by what metrics? Which ones were failed experiments? How much funding was ultimately spent on each, and what is left in the Builders Treasury? What did we learn?

  • Forward-looking: The structure proposed implicitly changes the original Builders model — initially, the group was set out to be trusted capital allocators akin to a sub-DAO model (i.e., “we, the community, trust this group to self-govern and smartly allocate funding to things that accrue value to the protocol”), whereas this proposal looks to be more of an aggregation of small independent funding proposals. What direction do the builders want to go? How should we, as voters, be thinking about this funding request?

Utimately, these early EGPs will set a bar for what rigour is required to get funding for the protocol moving forward, and adding depth & specificity to this one will make the Eco Community even better in the long-run.