This topic aims to garner feedback for a proposal that would see Gnosis allocating a portion of its treasury for impact/public good initiatives.
Motivation
With the recent black-swan event on the Terra blockchain which saw north of $40B wiped out in a matter of days, it’s logical to assume a trend of negative sentiment and distrust towards cryptocurrencies continue into the near future.
With this in mind, I propose that Gnosis take the opportunity to strategically position itself to align more with the idea of public good and “corporate social responsibility”.
Branding Implications
Public good initiatives will help to reinforce Gnosis’ existing stance regarding environmental friendliness and sustainability.
Creates a distinguishing factor between Gnosis and other blockchains.
Accumulation of positive sentiment during the current “bear market”.
Current and future projects built on Gnosis Chain will be automatically aligned with the above-mentioned positive sentiment.
Proposed Implementation
n % of treasury allocated towards public good (where n represents a value to be voted on by the community)
Open up applications for charitable organisations looking to become beneficiaries of the initiative.
Have the community vote on which organisations to onboard.
The pooled allocation of funds will be distributed in monthly intervals amongst the organisations
While I support the general ethos, it is to early to do this. This is analogous to a high school student giving away his college fund to charity – the student needs those funds to grow themselves and boost their eventual impact! Once Gnosis chain is established and thriving, then it makes sense to aggressively target impact. For now, this is more distraction than benefit. It takes team member/DAO time to evaluate and approve charities, It taxes Karpatkey by reducing liquidity. etc
Ill add a little more nuance tho – I love the idea of key, successful crypto infrastructure returning funds to its ecosystem through public goods funding. As Gnosis Chain matures, I would 100% support this. Also, today I do support some one-off public goods fundings. I am only against a large scale program that distracts the team and reduces funds during a bear.
Thanks for the follow-up, I’ll save this idea for later down the line as I don’t plan on leaving the ecosystem anytime soon! Also, I’m pretty new to governance so I just wanted to ask if it’s best practice to remove topics that don’t make it to phase-2? Or should I just keep it as is without proceeding to next phase?