[EGP] Layer 3 Ecollective subDAO funding request

We as an entity
As the Layer 3 Ecollective, our composition consists of individuals deeply devoted to developing, maintaining, and growing the community associated with the Eco currency, the Eco protocol, and its accompanying products.

Mission And Vision
We adhere to the tenets set forth in the Econstitution (EGP # ECOnstitution) and Builders Ecollective, which emphasizes the significance of sub-DAOs within the governance framework of the Eco protocol (EGP #006 Builders Ecollective Incentive Program).

We follow the precepts of ECOGM: Evangelize, Create, Onboard, Govern, Monetize. Over the lifetime of Layer 3 Ecollective, we have endowed these vectors with our own special meanings, which are:

Evangelize: As a collective, we were born out of this community. We see ourselves as the guardians and evangelists of the ideas on which the Eco currency has been built. That includes within the community, on social media, everywhere.

Create: Being proactive creators ourselves, we have also created and will continue to create incentive structures to encourage other community members to undertake valuable initiatives and create valuable content to grow the Eco Protocol. refN1

Onboard: We are the ones who not only promote the protocol and its products, attract new members to join and share our Сulture & Vibes but also guide them on a daily basis, and build frameworks to effectively integrate them into our community. refN2

Govern: This is the area and meaning that has been unifying for us throughout our 10 months of existence. To this point, as a group we have experimented with different web3 governance structures and consensus-building practices. These experiences and learnings will allow us to effectively distribute and deploy funds, mediate disagreements, and continue to iterate in the pursuit of our collective goal. However, the goal remains to be on-ramping new entities to the Eco protocol governance structure through our Ecollective, making it more distributed and autonomous. refN3

Monetize: It is still our biggest mission and goal to ensure that the number of initiatives aimed at Eco currency and all products based on it is growing and ensure that they are contributing to this new type of Economy, which serves our common interests and maximizes the aggregate wealth held in the Eco protocol.

refN1 - as an example for the “Create” subsection: One of our main challenges and successes in the first months of Layer 3’s formation has been the creation of incentive structures within Culture & Vibes, working schemes to encourage not only new entrants to the community but also Layer 3 members to continue to make useful contributions. As a quantifiable metric of success here could be the number of contributions by Layer 3 members. If we can achieve a 15-20% increase in contributions compared to the previous period. And some sort of feedback and participation levels in response to incentive schemes, if we receive positive feedback from at least 70% of participants, for example.

refN2 - as an example for the “Onboard” subsection: Layer 3 had 3 of the 4 community moderators as its members, each of whom directed new community members to the right answers on a daily basis (in addition to other Layer 3 members who also did so on a daily basis in Discord’s language channels). We have also conducted and are conducting initiatives aimed at attracting new users to the ecosystem, such as Zealy Quests (Zealy - Join the movement), EcoGeneration Auction, The NFT pizza drop (https://opensea.io/collection/ecopizza), community Twitter (https://twitter.com/ecolytes) and did numerous Twitter bounty-promos. We helped “integrate” the Tender Wallet bot into the community in the early weeks of its launch and we are the ones who have and are guiding new community members interested in the Beam wallet. As a metric of success here, we look at the growth in the number of initiatives to attract new individuals, the growth in the number of Beam wallet users, created as a result of these challenges, and the increase in the number of transactions and minted Beam names.

refN3 - as an example for the “Govern” subsection: During these 10 months, we have spent over 50+ hours in voice calls which were aimed at solving a multitude of issues related to the governance of the Layer 3 structure and various aspects of it. Overall our activity within Layer 3 resulted in at least 13 of our collective members significantly increasing their level of understanding of web3 governance processes, improving the quality of decision-making processes, and remaining committed to the principles of decentralization, permissionlessness, and autonomy. This is one of our biggest challenges, given the size of our sub-DAO, which we will continue to address going forward. We are putting the knowledge we have acquired to use for the benefit of Eco protocol, influencing decision-making on certain EGPs, and tracking the implementation of some of the community-oriented EGPs.

Funding Allocation
Our initial funding request will be allocated to a few specific efforts, which include major marketing programs designed to amplify our reach, maintain the unique culture and vibes within our community, and establish a moderate reserve fund for important community initiatives that spring up organically. We believe that targeted funding in these areas will not only fortify community engagement but also fuel the growth and adoption of the Eco currency, and increase the number of Eco and Ecox long-term holders and users. We are requesting an allocation of 1.87M Eco tokens from the community treasury to accomplish these goals.

The 1.87M Eco tokens will be distributed among the following initiatives over a 3-month timeframe: 1) Marketing campaigns - 1.37M Eco 2) Culture & Vibes - 300K Eco 3) Reserve Fund - 200K Eco. All unrealized funds from the programs and initiatives listed above will be returned to the community treasury. If this proposal is successful, we also ask to be refunded the 10,000 Eco required to pay the onchain fees for sending this proposal, so the final total would be 1.88M Eco.

1) Marketing programs aimed at attracting people to the ecosystem. 1.37M Eco
“Be Influential” - 1.22M Eco.
You can read about all the details of the program on the Layer 3 Ecollective Snapshot. LINK.
Short summary: This program, titled “Be Influential”, strategically engages content creators on Twitter to promote the Beam wallet and Eco protocol. Focused on mid-level influencers, it encourages them to share authentic experiences through various content types, from simple tweets to tweets with videos and infographics. A competitive prize pool of 1.22M Eco is proposed to incentivize participation over a three-month period, with stringent evaluation criteria for content quality and promotion efforts. Evaluation will be conducted by experienced members, ensuring fairness and transparency. In case of a suboptimal scenario, adjustments to prize places and fund return are planned, with a detailed report promised at the program’s conclusion.

“Eco Community Experiences in Thesandbox metaverse” - 150K Eco.
You can read more about all the details of this exact program on the Layer 3 Ecollective Snapshot. LINK
Short summary: This program is focusing on engaging events and the distribution of $ECO prizes. The aim is to increase user registration, enhance interaction with Builder’s projects, and promote them on Thesandbox and Twitter. Events will run 1-4 times monthly with a budget of up to 50,000 $ECO each month. The first event, “Beam Link Hunt,” involves QR code searches, with additional events including a lottery, Speed Run Challenge, and Eco Quiz. The proposal underscores user metrics for success, promising transparent reporting on Google Sheets.

2) Culture & Vibes initiative. 300K Eco
The Culture & Vibes 300K Eco funding request is an appeal from the Layer 3 Ecollective to support the essential aspects of community spirit within the Ecosystem. A thriving and harmonious community is integral to the success and longevity of the Eco protocol. The funds will be used for organizing events that strengthen the bonds among community members.

This area includes running challenges, raffles, English-speaking clubs (one of the unifying initiatives in this area aimed at overcoming the language barrier), and Twitter promotions, - on various platforms such as Discord, Twitter, Zealy, and others. Over the past 10 months, we’ve experimented a lot and developed an understanding of beneficial community initiatives and we would like to continue, refine, and grow this effort.

Existing and new initiatives within Culture & Vibes will go through the approval stage by the entire Layer 3 Ecollective. Applicants in Layer 3 Ecollective undergo a comprehensive proposal review process. This process involves dialogue and feedback from Layer 3 Ecollective members, ensuring a thorough examination of the initial proposal. For more details on the application submission and review process for Culture & Vibes funding, please see the Application Submission Process section. Funds will go exclusively to projects that benefit the community and add value to the Eco protocol ecosystem.

A detailed report on the Culture & Vibes initiatives will be made available to the public 3 months after the funds have been received or before the next request for funds.

3) Reserve Fund. 200K Eco
The formation of a reserve fund primarily serves to respond quickly to emerging community requests for funding for various projects beneficial to the Eco Protocol. In addition to requests from Layer 3 participants, we also make sure that initiatives encouraging the development of the Eco protocol from other community members also have ways to be realized within the reserve fund. The reserve fund can also be used to cover unaccounted administrative expenses, fees, etc.

Applications under Reserve Fund funding requests undergo a comprehensive review process. This process involves dialogue and feedback from Layer 3 Ecollective members, ensuring a thorough examination of the initial proposal. For more details on the application submission and review process for Reserve Fund funding, please see the Application Submission Process section.

The wide range of Layer 3 participants, with different backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives, ensures unbiased formation of a consensus opinion on the funding of certain projects.

Ecollective specifications
Layer 3 Ecollective has a similar membership structure compared to the Builders Ecollective. Our composition is flexible, allowing members to join or exit the collective through a collective vote. As a result, our collective’s core activity typically involves around 20 to 30 members, maintaining a total membership of approximately 42 individuals. This positioning establishes us as the largest sub-DAO within the Eco protocol governance framework.

We currently use two platforms in our day-to-day work: Discord https://discord.eco.org/ and Charmverse CharmVerse - the all-in-one web3 space

Setup Details
The initial membership is composed of the Layer 3 members. The Layer 3 Ecollective asks for the initial funding of 1.87M ECO tokens to be allocated to a Gnosis Safe where each member has one voting right. The consensus procedure will be made up of open talks among all the members, followed by a vote on Snapshot to formally settle opinions, and then followed by a transaction on Gnosis Safe to release the funds. The Gnosis Safe will be managed by the backup signers which are all the members listed below. To be considered for funds, a Layer 3 member must submit an application to the Layer 3 Ecollective on Snapshot, once they do so and the voting delay of 3 days has passed, the candidate’s submission will be regarded as official.
https://www.figma.com/file/3odFUOqTmMCUMVqRxYkjAf/L3-Funds-Process-(English)?type=whiteboard&node-id=0-1

Snapshot details:

  • Address: https://layer3.ecollective.xyz
  • Network: Ethereum
  • Authors: Whitelist (only Layer 3 Ecollective members can submit)
  • Voting strategy: Whitelist (only Layer 3 Ecollective members can vote)
  • Voting delay: 3 days
  • Voting period: 3 days
  • Voting quorum: 25 members equalling 60%
  • Voting type: Basic voting (For, Against, or Abstain) with a single choice and shutter
  • Controller: Gnosis Safe via SafeSnap
  • Admins:
    • 0x0395dBF11151DfF453A17dCECdAb9116864fD1Ac
    • 0x8f10e24bc438d70f8749d688b100b8a76e3fa50a

In the case that a proposal is accepted and the required number of votes are obtained, a transaction will be executed automatically by SafeSnap and release the funds from Safe. The Layer 3 Ecollective will repay any network fees utilized during the signing process to the members from the fund in the following cycle.

Gnosis Safe details:

  • Address: 0x2a947049EC58BE1Bc08614101D0b3D43BA977f95
  • Network: Ethereum
  • Signers: 3
  • Threshold: Bound to Snapshot
  • Signing period: Automatic (SafeSnap)
  • Signers:
    • 0x0395dBF11151DfF453A17dCECdAb9116864fD1Ac (Discord: saulodigital)
    • 0x8f10e24bc438d70f8749d688b100b8a76e3fa50a (Discord: dave_eco)
    • 0x2c3021bbbe1a8d50c200f9489b557377ebecdf9a (Discord: mikeweb)
  • Destination: Original address who submitted the proposal on Snapshot

Application submission process
This streamlined process combines voice discussions, asynchronous platforms, and voting tools to create an efficient and transparent proposal submission and review process for Layer 3 Ecollective. This approach guarantees that each proposal undergoes a thorough evaluation and benefits from contributions from participants in the Layer 3 Ecollective.

1. Idea Generation and Initial Discussion:
- Duration: 2-4 days
- Platform: Charmverse or Discord
- Process: Layer 3 members generate ideas and initiate discussions on Charmverse or Discord. Initial feedback is sought, and a temperature check is conducted.

2. Pre-Call Preparation (Optional):
- Duration: A couple of days before the general Layer 3 weekly call
- Platform: Charmverse or Discord
- Process: Ideas or proposals are added to the agenda for the upcoming weekly Layer 3 call. Members have time to prepare for in-depth discussions during the call.

3. Improve:
- Duration: Until the feedback is addressed, or a reasoned opinion is given by the proposer as to why the feedback was not addressed.
- Process: The forum post evolves into a Charmverse proposal, entering the discussion stage. Any community member can suggest inline edits and provide global comments to enhance and refine the proposal. If the proposal develops within the Discord, the author needs to make a reasoned response to the feedback received. On both platforms, authors need to improve their proposals based on received feedback from other Layer 3 members.

4. Decide (Publish to Snapshot):
- Duration: Voting period - 3 days.
- Process: The final decision-making step involves pressing the “publish to snapshot” button within Charmverse, thereby initiating a Snapshot vote. A proposal can be sent to snapshot also manually if it was created and finalized as part of the Discord discussions.

This process encourages a thorough exploration of the application, promotes constructive dialogue, and ensures that the community has a chance to contribute to its improvement. The integration of Charmverse, with its ability to seamlessly transition from forum-style discussions to formal proposals, enhances the efficiency and transparency of the decision-making journey.

Reporting
A detailed report on each marketing program conducted, as well as Culture & Vibes campaigns and the execution of the Reserve Fund - will be provided to the Eco Governance Forum (https://forums.eco.org/) after three months of receiving the funds in our Gnosis Safe.

The report will contain the stated success/failure criteria of all the projects and sections described in this EGP, their actual compliance with them, and a description of the beneficial effects for the Eco protocol and the community. Our own assessments of the prospects for certain initiatives, possible improvements, and recommendations to those responsible for implementation.

We will also give an overall assessment of our work as Layer 3 Ecollective, and highlight promising areas and areas that need improvement.

Also, we will provide a brief informal performance report at the end of each month since the funds have been received.

Conclusion
The Layer 3 Ecollective is a dedicated assembly of individuals deeply devoted to developing, maintaining, and growing the community associated with the Eco currency, the Eco protocol, and its accompanying products. Guided by the Eco nstitution and Builders Ecollective principles, our mission focuses on evangelizing, creating, onboarding, governing, and monetizing within the community.

The funding allocation request of 1.87M Eco tokens covers “Be Influential” and “Eco Community Experiences in Thesandbox metaverse” marketing programs, a Culture & Vibes initiative, and a Reserve fund. The comprehensive governance and reporting structure ensures transparency, accountability, and the active participation of Layer 3 members.

With a commitment to fostering community spirit and maintaining a vibrant ecosystem, the Layer 3 Ecollective seeks to contribute significantly to the growth and adoption of the Eco protocol, i.e. increase the number of real users of the Beam wallet, long-term holders of Eco and Ecox, strengthen the governance structure of the Eco protocol by increasing the number of active governance actors. The proposal reflects a strategic approach to funding allocation, incorporating targeted initiatives to fortify community engagement and ecosystem development. All unrealized funds from the programs and initiatives listed above will be returned to the community treasury.


If this proposal is successful, we also ask to be refunded the 10,000 Eco required to pay the onchain fees for sending this proposal, so the final total would be 1.88M Eco.

5 Likes

I’m excited to see Layer 3 submitting its first proposal :raised_hands:

In my view, the ask is compelling, well-formulated and easy-to-follow — I am in favour of it passing and feel comfortable voting for it on behalf of the Association & the delegations made to us by stakeholders.

It has all the makings of a strong proposal — specifically: an overarching primary focus on doing one thing well (attracting people to the ecosystem via the Twitter experiment), the time-boxed nature of it, clarity on the group’s norms/processes, and a firm commitment to reporting out after three months.

I’ll join the Builders call to hear more and might suggest a couple light edits, but directionally I’m excited to see this type of experimentation and to see Layer 3 continue to progress.

4 Likes

Thank you for the kind words! :raised_hands:

2 Likes

I noticed that the text in this place was inserted from a past revision of the draft, by mistake. It’s correct now.

3 Likes

Very important proposal, glad to see it finally ready for a vote after so many hours of hard work by Ihar and L3 ECOllective.
And I am really happy that the association is going to support this initiative, we need all the support we can get.

1 Like

I have concerns about the proposed safe policy.
Having only 2 signers and a (currently) 1/2 signing policy sounds too risky for me.
What happens if one of the signers got hacked ? All L3 requested funds might be lost.

Also, If I know who those 2 address belongs to, I think it’s important to let everyone know.

I will reiterate it here again. This issue was handled in such a way that we, as a group, didn’t have much time to solve it properly. Everyone should consider the slow dynamic of such big groups and subDAOs. It is often not considered at all. But we will solve it after EGP is approved. This will be one of our priority.
I agree with you, thanks for your feedback.
BTW, looks like this will be solved soon, until the EGP is sent onchain, so all good.

1 Like

MikeWeb was added as a third signer to Safe

  • 0x2c3021bbbe1a8d50c200f9489b557377ebecdf9a (Discord: mikeweb)
1 Like

At the request of the community, I will post my input here after attending Builders Office Hours and addressing this proposal. Although I was a member of Layer 3 for 9 months, I am opposed to this EGP at this time for a number of reasons that I will describe below. There are two sections to my comment: observations that highlight what I think is wrong with it; and suggestions that illustrate some ideas that could have made this proposal a far more persuasive and friendly initial step that could have been extended further.

Observations

Reserve Fund:

  • Some argue that the purpose was to submit the EGP and that this was a success; I’ve heard this from numerous individuals. To me, it appears to be “activity for the sake of activity,” which most of us criticized and thought was not the best way to proceed a long time ago.
  • There is no backup plan to return unused funds (I’m not sure if that has changed), which would be a reasonable thing to do given the mindset that for this all is “it doesn’t cost us anything, it’s not our money.
  • Reviews every 3 months are not enough and would be more effective at the very least every month, with a weekly following.
  • There are no OKRs, KPIs, or indicators that provide me with a clear picture of the proposal’s aims and critical results.
  • After 11 months I was expecting more, the group could provide much more if they spent a few weeks determining the value they wanted to provide and giving assurances in a clear manner. This proposal was posted on this forum and submitted onchain immediately without giving people time to come forward with feedback. Rules say it should be on the forum for at least one week and go for discussion another week but maybe that’s just for the Association and not us all.
  • Many of the items of the proposal are not clear or provide obvious proof of group participation; after following up with them for many months, I don’t believe most of them wrote this EGP, therefore calling it an L3 proposal is inaccurate. Plus, some members of the group have already stated that this EGP is meaningless so I would prefer the group to make a self-evaluation to be more confident before moving forward.
  • I don’t see any planning for reserve funding or culture and vibes. I don’t think L3’s mentality has changed enough for me to be confident that they should have an allocation this big, I hope I’m wrong but I suspect it will be used for a retrodrop or to create participation in activities that will either be attended by L3 themselves and ripe rewards like in the past, or will provide near zero value to the network (e.g. sea games, guess the movie title, bets in football games, playing cards, and more).
  • Although many items on this proposal are compelling, I don’t feel it as complete. I believe this was rushed in a bad way, such as ignoring votes, not being able to reach a consensus, not being educated about the various facets of Eco, and, most importantly, not understanding L3 and its future as members.
  • I believe the Association lives in their own reality and they have their own idea of what is happening, and as a result, they’re misleading themselves about many things. I’ve been with this network since day one, and I’ve seen and experienced everything, so I’m not speaking in vain.
  • Layer 3 is not a sub-DAO and has not been for a long time; they even break their own guidelines. For example, we all voted in favor of utilizing Optimism for our Safe, but we’re all defying our own consensus to make it easier for people to dump. Vote is here: Discord

Culture and Vibes:

  • Culture and vibes are meaningless without education; so, education fosters culture and vibes. I wanted to see more educational content such as videos and tutorials, as well as, the translation of documentation and whitepapers, the creation of IRL events, and entice people to use Eco. Many of you are in a position to do it because you’re ambassadors or moderators in other communities but it didn’t happen for some reason.
  • We’re too much inside our Discord and we keep fail, we need to get more out there, and partner with other communities, teams, and projects.
  • Money is not everything, and we can do many things without it, just like many other communities, this is culture and vibes, the true culture and vibes where we act in good faith because we like and believe in something or someone. Memes, games, fun, education, assistance, and support can all take place without the use of money if we want.

Eco Experiences in The Sandbox:

  • I have been working more closely with Robin and I believe he will always deliver but I think even his project may fail if he doesn’t change the approach which looks like he is now. If it fails it’s not due to his dedication but the state our community faces right now so I hope he goes outside of Eco and seek more support and participation.

Be Influential Program:

  • It contradicts my belief that paying influencers is the best way to grow a community; in fact, Eco founders themselves teach and pray on our community’s onboarding form (example here) that paying influencers is not the best way to grow a community. Therefore we all neglect our own “beliefs” which is discouraging to me.
  • If everyone is yelling “bull market,” there’s a slim possibility they all ape on XYZ project and people will join our server, but then what? We have nothing for them, I’d like to see more solid plans for what all of these folks will do once they arrive. Plus, in case a bull market comes in the short term they will join regardless.
  • Promoting Beam is insufficient because Beam on itself can receive all of the attention it needs. Small influencers cannot compete with CNBC, OP Radio, Blockworks, Base, The Block, Coindesk, Cointelegraph, Coinbase, DeCential, and many others teams and individuals reaching out. Good products like Beam are the marketing because of their elegance and problem-solving abilities, they speak for themselves and people follow.
  • Provide detailed instructions for the influencers, I have never seen the instructions so I’m not sure what these instructions are, there’s no context about the quality and how reliable these instructions will be. However, I’m really concerned with the history of our community Twitter and I hope it’s not the classic “follow/like/retweet” dumb marketing campaigns I see there, or the tweets offering ECO openly for likes which not only breaks Twitter ToS but sets a bad precedent for us all.
  • I read some analytics of tweet views will be used, but those are worthless metrics in my opinion.
  • When funds run out, influencers will stop sharing because it was never organic, and people will quit.
  • I can see an outcome were we pay random people for tweets, they will get ECO on mainnet to dump it, and the price will collapse even more. I hope I’m wrong and there’s a chance I’m missing something here so I apologize but this is my understanding from the call: the result is we pay people to dump the price and hurt the economy.

Suggestions

Culture and Vibes:

  • Define yourself and reflect on why you are here and how you can contribute to the Eco narrative. Don’t see naive numbers or attention and focus on infrastructure.
  • You need more skin in the game.
  • You should apply more to inspire others. The group always seeks the easiest and least responsible ways of dealing with situations and matters. You must put in more effort and be more accountable. You can’t expect everything to be provided to you for free, I believe this is a precedent set by the Eco team since our community’s inception, and the effect is that no one cares.

Eco Experiences on the Sandbox:

  • Robin knows builders’ feedback already.

Be Influential:

  • Views are perceptions, they do not imply captured participants. I read several magazines while waiting in the doctor’s office or read many tweets that appear in my feed, and 95% of them I forget about right away. You should find an alternative to tweet views to justify tour success.
  • Each influencer should have a dedicated Discord invite, we measure how many users join from those invites and do a retention study after some time. How many users joined, how many stayed after joining, how many comments, quests, positions they obtained, the quality of their input, and other factors.
  • The campaign should be truthful and allow them to try Beam, the product they are reviewing. Make them use Beam, create a Beam name, and create content about it.
  • Give them funds with Beam via a Beam Link. It will contribute with more Beam Names, onchain data, and users use/see the wallet.
  • If I understood correctly it was stated that content would be created for influencers; this is, in my opinion, a dangerous precedent. You should not provide them the content, but rather the criteria, and then let them come up with the content. They will all be unique, and the process will be more organic. If you draft for them we will not be able to know who is better than others. This is the ideal method to move forward and take the best, most innovative, and hardest-working candidates. You want to keep the best ones.
  • In general, I still don’t like the idea of paying individuals to tweet, instead, I’d rather identify who already tweets and reward them solely. You will get greater outcomes, people who do it because they want to, and they will be more driven to keep going.
  • If you only choose generic influencers, they will quit as soon as the money runs out.

I’d love to support L3 directly here, but I just don’t see that happening because there was not enough time to discuss this all in an efficient and productive way. True, there is always a path for trial and error, but that path evolves, lowering the threshold of these initial proposals, which I believe is incorrect. I became considerably more demanding, and I intend to continue like that.

In some ways, I hope this EGP is approved and L3 finds a way to mature and become more responsible… However, I can not vote on this proposal now and pretend that everything is good. In my opinion, it would be far better if the amount was conservative and used as a first step to demonstrate what Layer 3 might do.

Most likely, I will vote against it, but I am hoping that the Association or another team member with more weight than me will vote to take me.

I hope the long wall of text is okay, it’s a difficult vote for me so wanted to show all my reasoning and where I’m at. I also believe that many people will grasp my reasons and will embrace my opinion openly. Thank you and good luck! :heart:

1 Like

I’ll give feedback regarding the Be Influential program and some other things regarding EGP and what I know.

There is no backup plan to return unused funds (I’m not sure if that has changed)

It has been there from the start: “All unrealized funds from the programs and initiatives listed above will be returned to the community treasury”. It’s been there before it was posted on forum, and could be found here also - LINK

Reviews every 3 months are not enough and would be more effective at the very least every month, with a weekly following.

It is there also, was added on the day 1 when it was posted on the forum: “Also, we will provide a brief informal performance report at the end of each month since the funds have been received”.

There are no OKRs, KPIs, or indicators that provide me with a clear picture of the proposal’s aims and critical results.

It is not true. Be Influential has it: “the expected result of this program in terms of audience reach will range from 40,000 (bad scenario) to 120,000 (good scenario) views. An important criterion for success will be the attraction of a geographically distributed audience (from Asia, possibly Africa, central and western Europe). The number of participants will be influenced by our ability to communicate about the program, the prizes’ attractiveness, the market’s general state, etc”. and there is more even more after - LINK

“Eco Community Experiences in Thesandbox metaverse” - has COST PER ACQUISITION and SUCCESS METRICS which you can see here LINK

Culture & Vibes success metrics could be found in RefN1 and RefN2. But I agree that it’s not accurately stated that they are referring to Culture & Vibes. It’s what is implied in the context: “As a quantifiable metric of success here could be the number of contributions by Layer 3 members. If we can achieve a 15-20% increase in contributions compared to the previous period. And some sort of feedback and participation levels in response to incentive schemes, if we receive positive feedback from at least 70% of participants, for example.” and “As a metric of success here, we look at the growth in the number of initiatives to attract new individuals, the growth in the number of Beam wallet users, created as a result of these challenges, and the increase in the number of transactions and minted Beam names.”

So, in general, everything was there from day 1.

This proposal was posted on this forum and submitted onchain immediately without giving people time to come forward with feedback. Rules say it should be on the forum for at least one week and go for discussion another week but maybe that’s just for the Association and not us all.

I was using official Eco Association “EGP Proposal Submission Guidelines” which you can find here - LINK. There is nothing about “it should be on the forum for at least one week and go for discussion another week”. I followed all the rules stated in the guidelines.

In fact, the proposal was on the forum for 3 days before Builders Office Hours. Another 4 days on the forum after Builders Office Hours while the support phase of the current cycle is in progress. And in addition the voting itself will last 3 more days.

Also, I try to give timely feedback and monitor the forum constantly.

Many of the items of the proposal are not clear or provide obvious proof of group participation; after following up with them for many months, I don’t believe most of them wrote this EGP, therefore calling it an L3 proposal is inaccurate.

Here is a list of those who were active contributors of ideas and text for this EGP: ihar, Saulo, Helga, Ones, Valirini, Jeremie, Irina2610, MikeWeb. Also, about 3-5 other people expressed ideas situationally. Overall, this EGP accumulates many of our ideas that have been discussed collectively over many months. I’m sure this more than fulfills the notion of teamwork.

Plus, some members of the group have already stated that this EGP is meaningless

It’s a destructive feedback. People have the ability to speak for themselves. Neither here nor in Discord were there any such reviews.

I don’t see any planning for reserve funding or culture and vibes. I don’t think L3’s mentality has changed enough for me to be confident that they should have an allocation this big, I hope I’m wrong but I suspect it will be used for a retrodrop or to create participation in activities that will either be attended by L3 themselves and ripe rewards like in the past, or will provide near zero value to the network (e.g. sea games, guess the movie title, bets in football games, playing cards, and more).

Once again, it’s a destructive feedback. Saulo himself is an active weekly participant of one the main Culture & Vibes activity - English Speaking Club run by Irina2610. Also, there is a text about planing in the EGP: The funds will be used for organizing events that strengthen the bonds among community members. This area includes running challenges, raffles, English-speaking clubs (one of the unifying initiatives in this area aimed at overcoming the language barrier), and Twitter promotions, - on various platforms such as Discord, Twitter, Zealy, and others.

I agree that the Reserve Fund does not describe the details of possible applications. We cannot yet predict what kind of applications may come into the reserve fund.

Although many items on this proposal are compelling, I don’t feel it as complete. I believe this was rushed in a bad way, such as ignoring votes, not being able to reach a consensus, not being educated about the various facets of Eco, and, most importantly, not understanding L3 and its future as members.

It is not true. This EGP has been in active development since early September.

Layer 3 is not a sub-DAO and has not been for a long time; they even break their own guidelines. For example, we all voted in favor of utilizing Optimism for our Safe, but we’re all defying our own consensus to make it easier for people to dump.

It is once again a destructive feedback. Layer 3 started out with 60 people with about 30-40 people on the active set. We were proactive in finding consensus and solving problems within this big group all the time. We have been the only truly decentralized and unbiased sub-DAO within the Eco protocol for a long time (in terms of decision-making at least).

Over these months, we have collectively made many decisions, in the situation with the funds allocation on the Optimism has the error of who set up and was responsible for this safe all these months alone. But after the approval of the EGP and when we get to the point of solving the Gnosis Safe-related joints left - we will take care of this issue.

Be Influetial:

It contradicts my belief that paying influencers is the best way to grow a community; in fact, Eco founders themselves teach and pray on our community’s onboarding form (example here) that paying influencers is not the best way to grow a community. Therefore we all neglect our own “beliefs” which is discouraging to me.

It seems to me that the above example refers to paying Influencers who purposefully charge money to promote any projects for 1-2 tweets.
The Be Influential program is about something else entirely. We create a competition between Influencers to choose the ones who will present the information about Eco and Beam taken from open sources in the best and most qualitative way. And we are not paying them, but incentivizing them to strive for better, in content creation and promotion itself. And they will not only do a couple of tweets, but will be tweeting for 3 months period with 9 tweets a months minimum (this is the rule). There will also be a few recommendations for making personalized tweets (with personal experience). All of this is detailed in the proposal.

Small influencers cannot compete with CNBC, OP Radio, Blockworks, Base, The Block, Coindesk, Cointelegraph, Coinbase, DeCential, and many others teams and individuals reaching out.

There is no aim to compete with or replace big media - both approaches can co-exist in parallel. The more marketing, the better, not the worse. Marketing can and should be multi-directional. In addition, if this program is implemented in the best way - we will also get great networking, many mid-level influencers who will participate in the program - will really get to know the project closely, some of them will stay.

Provide detailed instructions for the influencers, I have never seen the instructions so I’m not sure what these instructions are, there’s no context about the quality and how reliable these instructions will be.

Instructions for Influencers on what materials to use and where to get them, what kind of tweets we’d like to see more of, and what kind of content is likely to score higher – in general terms. I don’t think that’s the most important part of the proposal, and it’s assumed that a person can evaluate the appeal of the proposal without those details. I hope it works out for you too, like it worked out for the others.

However, I’m really concerned with the history of our community Twitter and I hope it’s not the classic “follow/like/retweet” dumb marketing campaigns I see there, or the tweets offering ECO openly for likes which not only breaks Twitter ToS but sets a bad precedent for us all.

Once again, it’s a destructive feedback. I mentioned in the proposal that I am actively involved in running a Twitter page with over 1k followers. Tweets of this page earned over 80K impressions over the last two months. I run it professionally and create a lot of complex content.
Eco community Twitter I maintain on a less regular basis, but that negative characterization you give doesn’t fit nor Eco Community Twitter nor my professionalism in terms of content creation and Twitter promotion.

I read some analytics of tweet views will be used, but those are worthless metrics in my opinion.

This is a fairly accurate PUBLICLY available metric that has become public relatively recently (6 months+) and allows for evaluation of the effectiveness of certain actions. Twitter has been tightening its anti-bot policy over the last six months, introduced paid subscriptions - significantly refocusing shows (views) on those with a verification (paid subscription) badge and taking many other measures to separate humans from bots.

When funds run out, influencers will stop sharing because it was never organic, and people will quit.

Or not. :man_shrugging: This is “black or white” thinking.

I can see an outcome were we pay random people for tweets, they will get ECO on mainnet to dump it, and the price will collapse even more. I hope I’m wrong and there’s a chance I’m missing something here so I apologize but this is my understanding from the call: the result is we pay people to dump the price and hurt the economy.

Once again, it’s a destructive feedback. People are not “random”, they don’t get Eco to dump it - they compete, produce content, generate views and get rewarded for best submissions. They then have their free will to do anything with the prize, and that was my main point. The last thing I want to do is to decide for them what they should do with their prize. And I can’t guarantee, but I am sure that there will be some who will decide to hold it, because they will see value in the Eco protocol and its products.

This program has many goals, perhaps not all of them will be achieved, but the goals are very optimistic and the prospects may be unexpectedly pleasant.

Each influencer should have a dedicated Discord invite, we measure how many users join from those invites and do a retention study after some time.

This is an interesting suggestion, it could be implemented. However, not all tweets will lead people to discord. Some will lead people to eco.org, some to articles or the official twitter account.

The campaign should be truthful and allow them to try Beam, the product they are reviewing. Make them use Beam, create a Beam name, and create content about it.

I told on the call that I will send my personal Eco to all the participants via Beam links so that they can try it and then tweet their personal experience about it. This idea was there from the beginning.

Give them funds with Beam via a Beam Link. It will contribute with more Beam Names, onchain data, and users use/see the wallet.

This could be an option.

If I understood correctly it was stated that content would be created for influencers; this is, in my opinion, a dangerous precedent. You should not provide them the content, but rather the criteria, and then let them come up with the content.

Nothing like that was ever stated. I will just collect all the links with publicly available content for them in one place. All about Eco and Beam.

In general, I still don’t like the idea of paying individuals to tweet, instead, I’d rather identify who already tweets and reward them solely.

For weeks I’ve been compiling a list of people who, among other things, tweet about Eco and Beam or are already involved with our community in some other way (besides people from other sources). So this suggestion has already been realized in a way.

If you only choose generic influencers, they will quit as soon as the money runs out.

Or not. :man_shrugging: Once again, it is “black or white” thinking. I don’t invite only generic once.


I get the impression that this feedback is written without any careful reading of both the main proposal and its major “sub-proposals”. The attention to details and general vector is completely lacking. I have demonstrated this with many of my responses, because it is important not to leave it unattended.

Also, unfortunately, there is a lot of destructive feedback present, I have also pointed it out in my responses. I would like to see the amount of constructive feedback prevail over destructive feedback, or the latter absent completely.

1 Like

The Eco Association will submit support for this proposal (with its holdings and delegations) in order to satisfy the necessary support threshold to kick off the 3-day voting period.

1 Like

Oh, I’m sorry, you’re accurate regarding the EGP submission process; we changed it, and for some reason, I stuck with the old one. I’ll edit my comment and strike that text with a line.

Regarding returning the funding, when I read this proposal, it wasn’t here, and the original proposal can be read on Snapshot. I see you modified it 8 times and included it, so it wasn’t there on day one as you claim, but thanks for considering my feedback:

This proposal contains links to external sources, and any changes made to them will be unknown to us. This is why we want more decentralization and frequently use solutions like Snapshot or IPFS for governance proposals, I’m not even sure why we use Discourse for grants because when it’s put to a vote, any edits here or in your own docs will be misleading and will not respect the consensus on what people voted for, and proposers may not be held accountable.

Regarding the Optimism Safe, it was put to a vote after the mainnet Safe was created still it would still be the responsibility of L3 to oversee all of this before rushing to share this EGP, most ignored my feedback and you were the only one who opposed making changes since it would take too long to receive your funds. You didn’t want more signers, to post on Snapshot, or want to use Charmverse. So I left L3 and waited for L3 to tell me what to do, I’m not a member of the group and merely a facilitator of infrastructure where the group decides the direction. I don’t mean this in a negative way, but the truth is that this signers and Safe dilemma could have been fixed a long time ago, but it was last minute thanks to Rao and Jeremie’s input because no one really cares.

I continue to disagree that the amount in this EGP is worthwhile to “experiment” with at this stage. I’ve questioned you three times before, “you for some reason bring thousands of users, what then?” and you always said it wasn’t a problem but never really addressed how the group will capture and retain users after if arrive.

Regarding the Reserve Fund, there was a 1 million $ECO allocation during Season 1, it was eight months ago. What specifically did L3 perform to earn a threefold increase in allocation? Show me concrete evidence, KPIs, and data-driven analysis. I see a lot of arguing and voting, but it hasn’t proven any value to Eco yet. In fact, this proposal passed on Snapshot because a lot of DMs were sent out asking people to vote on Snapshot, and you barely could get the 25 votes in favor from all L3 members. With such a large sum of money, I’m not sure L3 will act responsibly after analyzing 11 months of voting with easypoll on Discord. I’d much rather see L3 create a product or service that advances the protocol, you don’t even have to use the Eco Currency for it, and there are several inventive ways to pay it forward to the protocol.

Weren’t you also on Weekly Sync #032 that happened on October 25th in the L3 call laughing saying you didn’t know why you were doing this because you thought it wouldn’t bring value? Didn’t you also say that you didn’t think no one would care about its value? You also contradict yourself since you say you’re creating this relationship with a network of influencers but you can’t wait two weeks for the funding or may lose them. Are they or are they not influencers? Honestly, it appears to be a shaky foundation because it does not sound like those influencers are here to stay.

It’s also not fair to call my feedback “destructive feedback” simply because you disagree with it, it’s like saying failing is the end of something. It isn’t. We don’t fail, we figure out why something doesn’t work and then get back up to make it better. Following the same thought process, you should consider my critique from another perspective, which may not be negative but educational. Your metrics are vaporware and I hope you see them in the future. Twitter is still filled with bots but those are not even the problem, the metric itself is flawed. Let’s analyze some tweets, shall we?

Example 1)

Example 2)

Example 3)

It’s all fake! Views are not a responsible metric. :face_with_raised_eyebrow:

I receive DMs every day about scam job offers, fake airdrops, and I’m included in dozens of lists filled with spam about shitcoins. Those 3 cases above have a massive number of views because they pay Twitter a few dollars to generate them, and this comes directly from Twitter itself, it’s how it makes money. When you establish a campaign, you can even choose whether you want views or followers, and they will emerge out of nowhere. So, isn’t that a way for me to exploit your campaign, where I spend $10 or $50 to produce views and be compensated because of the reward? I tested this myself and acquired 500 followers in 24 hours on a test account, and 50 likes for less than $10 on another. All of this is genuine individuals, a network of verified people whose job it is to have lists of to-do items, and there are numerous services like this out there. Google “buy twitter views” and you’ll find a plethora of legitimate services that will handle marketing for you. I still don’t know any influencers in your network, so I can’t vouch for them (except for Drea which I was already following months ago).

Another significant demotivator for me was that when I was going to publish the smartcontract onchain, I asked for ETH in fees and no one, no one, no one came forward and assisted. I was hoping for a person to say, “I can help” then another to say, “I have a little more,” then another to say, “I have a little more,” and to have a strong bond in this group willing to solve a problem that was meant for you… But, no. You did not even pay the fees for your own proposal. I do not believe in the group’s spirit and unity to genuinely engage, the group takes everything for granted, including ideas, funds, and more. I know this sounds strict but all of the group has been for almost 3 years here.

Unfortunately, I voted against this proposal, and I wish the group the best of luck. I hope you revise it, make it better and more consistent, create a mandate for L3 and how you will use the funds in a constructive way, create your rules, guidelines, about how L3 sees themselves and what their mission is—documentation and actions that demonstrate consistency in your past… And perhaps I will sponsor the next EGP myself if this does not pass due to my vote. :heart:

Regarding returning the funding, when I read this proposal, it wasn’t here, and the original proposal can be read on Snapshot. I see you modified it 8 times and included it, so it wasn’t there on day one as you claim, but thanks for considering my feedback:

no, it was there, and it is on Snapshot too. It is in the “Funding allocation” subsection:

Here, on the forum, I edited also with the goal to put it in the “Conclusion” section so that people will see there also. So here, on the forum, this text is repeated in two sections.

The Eco Association has chosen to vote in favor of the Layer 3 Ecollective subDAO funding request with its holdings and ECO delegations.

We believe that the proposed deliverables in the above EGP are reasonable in scope, funding levels and (if successfully executed on) will not only bring value and growth to the Eco Protocol, but will set the foundation for further community directed growth efforts in the future.

This EGP represents the continuation of a progressive decentralization experiment that the Association remains committed to.

1 Like

I’ve already pointed this out on discord twice and I’ll point it out again here. This is how I see it.

You took it upon yourself to create a safe and snapshot layer3, no one but Dave, if I’m not mistaken, asked you to do so and no one from Layer 3 gave you the right to appoint only Dave and yourself as signers.

The situation has been like this for a long time and you’ve spelled out more than once that it will be like this until we get the funds and maybe some time after.

EGP has been in active development for a few months and until the last moment the situation remained so. When there was a few weeks left before the EGP was sent to the forum - you contacted Layer3 with a message that you are leaving safe and snapshot management and think it is time to decentralize it.

It was unexpected and doesn’t seem like responsible behavior to manage anything. After I noticed that you are pushing this situation in not best time your answer once again was that I am manipulating and we may think about it and decentralize it all later.

The main thing for me in all of this is your general inconsistency of actions and words that created the problems. As I said before: “This issue was handled in such a way that we, as a group, didn’t have much time to solve it properly. Everyone should consider the slow dynamic of such big groups and subDAOs. It is often not considered at all”. And also that our biggest mistake here, as a group, was that we’ve been too trusting all along. “Don’t trust, verify”.

Once again, given my feedback above I consider this as a misrepresantion. The main thing for me in all of this is your general inconsistency of actions and words that created the problems.

You may think this way, ofcourse, but given my feedback above I consider this as a misrepresantion. Furthermore, given that you actually misled the group with incorrect verbal iterations - on the Builders call you could have taken the floor where you would have acknowledged that there was your personal fault and taken at least some responsibility. But none of that happened.

This is a complex question, I don’t think it’s correct to expect me or even Layer 3 to answer it alone. We as a group propose concrete ideas for action, they are justified, clear and, most importantly, they are within our competence (mine in particular). I do and propose what I know best. Maybe some parts of the proposal look ambitious - but that doesn’t mean you can say that the whole proposal is like that. It’s disruptive feedback, again. There are a lot of different people in the community who, to varying degrees, can address, bit by bit, the question you posed.

“If you criticize, offer suggestions. If you suggest it, do it.” - It’s a working scheme.

Where are you getting this from, please show me. We have a reserve fund of 200,000 ECO. That’s five times less than the first season’s allocation. The total request is 1.87M Eco - this is 1.87 times more than the allocation of the first season, but the request is many times more complex and does not bear any comparison with the first season. Explain what you mean.

This is destructive feedback, once again. Why? First, not only because the proposal refers to what has been done and to some major achievements, but also because such feedback is intended to devalue the efforts or actions of the group. This is why such feedback is called destructive feedback.

This is once again a destructive feedback, which has the purpose of devaluing my or the group’s efforts and casting the situation in a negative light. There were 27 people voted on the proposal. The quorum is 25. I have sent 3 DMs 6 hours before the deadline to people who not only usually vote on L3 snapshot, but also were 1. eco moderators and 2. builders - and the fact that they were not taken part in the important vote just seemed strange to me. One of them thanked me for the reminder, by the way. And even if I hadn’t reached out to them to remind them - we probably still would have reached consensus on that vote, given that 27 out of 25 people voted.

This isn’t the first time feedback like this has come from you. This is the most crude form of destructive feedback, and I think it is unacceptable in respectful environments.

This is once again, destructive feedback and crude misrepresentation of my words.
At one point, after working on EGP for a long time when it seemed to me that people were not very active in helping to finalize it - I really said that I stop understanding who needs it. I meant EGP in general. But I never said there was no value in it, I think there is an incredible amount of value in what we do as Layer 3 for the Eco protocol, and we remain, still, the most unrecognized group of people in this community.

The way you are trying to present my words that you heard somewhere is a gross misrepresentation of the situation as a whole.

Once again, destructive feedback. Some of them I contacted a 1 month before, and I was put into a situation where I would need to wait ~1month more minimum before. There were several ways to avoid it, and I have conveyed my opinion that I would like to avoid further waiting.

You don’t ask questions - you criticize very harshly and crude. If you had just asked - I would have told you that networking with Influencers who are very often cold contacts is quite a big and difficult job. I spend a lot of time contacting these people to really present the program and our community in the best light. And it’s important for me to know ahead of time which of them would like to participate in the program and are looking forward to it.

Fun fact - but it takes me just as long to respond to your destructive feedback, I could be networking with new Influencers or doing other things right now, but instead I’m forced to respond to this kind of very low-level feedback for the second time. Unfortunately, I can’t let it go because even this kind of feedback has an impact on others, on the association and other stakeholders who are not familiar with what is going on.

I pointed out numerous times the low-level and unpreparedness of your feedback. And I would never call something like that as educational. That’s just ridiculous.

Ok. Three of three of your examples - is just random account buying legal Twitter AD. You say it is a scam - it is not. Twitter sell AD opportunities to literally anyone. This is legal and you will get those amount of REAL views (these are those tweets which you see in your timeline with the “AD” mark). Some views are - of course - more valuable than others. The views you get from the tweets you buy Twitter promotion for are some of the lowest-level ones, but even they work. It certainly can’t be characterized as FAKE as you say.

You write all of this and still write that they are fake. It is strange. And you need to pay not “a few dollars” to get these number, but from $100 for 25K views to $5000 for ~1 million, as far as I know.

No, it is not the way to exploit, because, the participant of the program will need to make at least 27 tweets for three months period. If they even will pay for views not on Twitter, but on darkmarket - they will still need to pay from 30 to 80$ PER TWEET to get nice amount of views (multiply by 27). And, even after that, 1) I am not blind 2) there is a CONTENT side of the tweet which is also will be evaluated equal. SO, in the end, if a participant will make a great content tweet and buy views for it - he will just make his final payout smaller from the program and will help us promote good content better. It’s not a vector of attack.

Did it before and answered above. However, I agree that there are dishonest players and schemes everywhere and it is impossible to foresee everything. I believe that I have prepared well overall.

You know, after you didn’t even acknowledge for a second on the Builders call (with Association and the team being present) that the situation with the safe was largely your responsibility and didn’t even apologize once, I was also very demotivated too. :man_shrugging: Happens.

You are of course free to vote as you wish, and I’m not disappointed with your position. However, I will be very disappointed if as a result of the kind of low-level feedback you have left here, and sometimes even rudely, destructive feedback, someone votes the same way you did and the proposal will not be accepted for this ridiculous reason.

I did not expect the Eco Association taking the freedom to overtake the outcome of a community governance voting phase .

To be honest, I could only have imagined such things happening in a disaster scenario.

you mean to say to overcome 1 vote from a guy with a big stack (which in theory should be accompanied with more responsibility), who could not even read the proposal in detail and provide a clear feedback - justification for why he votes against? Is that supposed to be a reason, in your opinion, why any proposal that benefits the protocol according to various people and the team will be stopped?

Isn’t this, instead, a disastrous scenario for the community governance?