Anemic Projects Die

Project Title

Anemic Projects Die


Let’s give the most recent round of grant recipients a top off to compensate for the drop in ETH/USD exchange, so that these projects have a chance for success.


There’s a general pattern that if people don’t have enough funds, their projects tend to suffer.


Eth went from $3,528.04 on April 4, 2022, around the time most grant proposals we’re being submitted, to $1,958.11 on May 20, 2022, when proposals passed on chain.

I’m gonna guess that no one expected that and that they probably don’t have enough funds to complete the things they wanted to do.


Give the grant recipients more ETH to make up the unexpected exchange rate difference.

If $1,958.11 * 1.8 = $3,528.04,
then giving an additional 80% of ETH to the last round of grant recipients would make up the difference


BorrowLucid is writing this proposal, even though she’s had stupid covid brain, and Isaac will help set up a minion, so this whole thing can be done in one proposal.

Grant Request $

96.424 ETH

What the Funds Are For

Ethereum Cat Herders
45.435 Eth * 0.8 = 36.348 ETH

Apache Tuweni
($50,000/$3,528.04) * 0.8 = 11.34 ETH

DAO Star One
7.3 Eth * 0.8 = 5.84 ETH

Mycelium Research
6.45 Eth * 0.8 = 5.16 ETH

Black Sky Nexus
14.97 Eth * 0.8 = 11.976 ETH

Smart Invoice
30 Eth * 0.8 = 24 ETH

2.2 Eth * 0.8 = 1.76 ETH

Additional Resources, Links, Portfolio

Smart Invoice

Ethereum Cat Herders

Black Sky Nexus

DAO Star One

Mycelium Research

Apache Tuweni


Thank you to Stellarmagnet for calling a discrepancy to my attention. The ETH/USD exchange should be based off of when proposals went on chain, not on the forum. Thus the math is as follows:

$1,958.11 * 1.5 = $2,942.05

Ethereum Cat Herders
45.435 Eth * 0.5 = 22.718 ETH

Apache Tuweni
($50,000/$2,942.05) * 0.5 = 8.497 ETH

DAO Star One
7.3 Eth * 0.5 = 3.65 ETH

Mycelium Research
6.45 Eth * 0.5 = 3.225 ETH

Black Sky Nexus
14.97 Eth * 0.5 = 7.485 ETH

Smart Invoice
30 Eth * 0.5 = 15 ETH

2.2 Eth * 0.5 = 1.1 ETH

Total ask: 61.675 ETH

@0x87690be28b65f13394741c2c2be5a6bdb0505039_Ethereum : Thank you so much for putting together this proposal. I really appreciate it, being one of the teams that requested a grant and ended up getting much less than what was in our budget.

One additional comment:

I believe that the distribution can be improved further, if we factor in the actual fiat budget of each project, and then also potentially make sure use the ETH value that is closest to the price when the proposal would be submitted and sponsored on-chain.

Here is a spreadsheet I made that I believe has a more accurate calculation - it uses =GOOGLEFINANCE("CURRENCY:ETHUSD") to get the current price of ETH: MolochDAO Grants - Difference Calculator - Google Sheets

What does the smart contract for the minion look like? I would like to understand the technical process more. I can go ahead and help with being the person who submits this proposal on-chain then immediately sponsors it as well.

1 Like

I’m helping @0x87690be28b65f13394741c2c2be5a6bdb0505039_Ethereum submit this proposal. Planning on using option B from the spreadsheet linked by @stellar_magnet .

This transaction will involve sending 71.2 WETH from the main treasury to the Safe Minion, and then distributing the 71.2 WETH to the grant recipients according to the table.

Here is a tenderly simulation showing the WETH payments. DAO members will be able to confirm the transaction data embedded in the proposal matches the transaction data from the tenderly simulation.

If approved, the 71.2 WETH will first need to be withdrawn into the Safe (UI will prompt you). Then the action will need to be executed (again UI will prompt).

1 Like

IMHO this proposal needs some input and votes from impartial members, ie: folks that are not positioned to directly benefit from the top up. I’m a little confused why it is already on chain, without giving proper time to gather sentiment first. It will be pretty sketchy if the only votes this receives is from those involved.

I want to see the projects succeed, but also feel strongly that the DAO should not be accountable for hedging the volatility. Everyone in the ecosystem is dealing with the same problem, but I don’t know of any DAOs distributing an additional 80% to offset this pain. I guess I’m gently leaning towards voting no, although I’m very curious to hear other perspectives on this.

I propose the funded projects produce some kind of proof of work, concrete deliverable, or similar milestone before additional funds are disbursed, and that the distribution follows the standard operating procedure of the grant pipeline.

I’d agree to @traviswyche point that this proposal can use input and voting from members outside the list of beneficiaries.

This proposal is on chain outside the grant period. Most likely members didn’t get a chance to look into the proposal or vote.

It will be nice to see voting numbers over 100 for any proposal to pass or fail.

IMHO, with a low voting turnout it will look like sneaking in the proposals and taking advantage of the process while members with high voting share couldn’t pay attention.

I’m going to vote No on this. The main reason being that there is another grants round scheduled for August and I’d rather see projects share a progress update for that round and add the extra required funds vs. give it all up front. Also, the diff between the ETHUSD price at grant and now has also shrunk to ~15%, which feels closer to “normal” crypto volatility.

This doesn’t seem crazy to me but I agree that it would be better to do it in a grant round, and also that it would be good to have input from the projects that it affects.

I put this proposal together and did the cat herding for it, because there was feedback about the cost breakdown that needed to be accounted for and I needed Isaac’s help in getting the distribution minion working correctly.

ReallyBoringGuild does get some funding from this proposal, but it’s not enough to really be impactful for me. I wouldn’t have spent the time and energy in this proposal if it wasn’t impacting a handful of projects, besides RBG.

The timing of this proposal was intended to be immediately following the previous grant proposal, so that I would still have members attention, although I was unable to produce a final proposal on chain until now. I apologize for the delay. Regarding previous comments from other Moloch DAO members that this proposal seems sneaky, I hadn’t considered a public forum as insufficient.

If you can do the putting together and the cat herding for this proposal to go up again over the next 1.5 weeks, I would appreciate that. It was something I did in attempt to be helpful for these projects and I’d really prefer not having to do that all over again.

Taking into consideration the feedback and responses to this proposal, @0x87690be28b65f13394741c2c2be5a6bdb0505039_Ethereum I think that it makes the most sense going forward, for projects/teams that feel they need a top-up to complete their work, to just submit an individual grant request.

I don’t think this has to happen in the next few weeks either, it can be based on what each project thinks makes the most sense to them.

I feel like for these types of proposals, it is probably fine for people to submit them anytime up until the voting period is for this last “RBG coordinated grant cycle” (although as I have stated in other mediums, I don’t think there is a problem with deviating outside of schedules so long as members go out of their way in raising awareness for on-chain votes happening, especially since we haven’t officially ratified a schedule/handbook, and there is no official process to make changes to how we do things).

The current proposal was submitted on-chain without going through signal voting etc (and we have also submitted votes that have failed signal voting in the past) and I don’t think it’s that complicated for people to make off the cuff decisions, since for most teams, the grant amount is quite small (like I imagine it’s under $10k for 4 of the projects, and CatHerders, Apache, Smart Invoice etc. were a bit more but still under $40k each) - the main thing is people should be available to answer questions to increase chances of getting positive votes.