Removed
2 years ago
Rejected
No interest from community
Removed
Comments (11)
Requested

425.66K DOT
Proposal Failed
Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (8)0.0 DOT
Support0.0 DOT
Nay (146)0.0 DOT
No interest from community
Removed
Comments (11)
Requested
Proposal Failed
Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (8)0.0 DOT
Support0.0 DOT
Nay (146)0.0 DOT
Provide —
@ProposalCritic
Permanent Members:
Fund Director/Operator: Responsible for overseeing the fund's strategic direction, investment decisions, and overall operations. Analyst: Engaged in in-depth market research, due diligence, and investment analysis to support the committee's decision-making process. Non-Permanent Members:
Fund Advisors (2 Community Members): Distinguished professionals from the blockchain and investment communities who provide valuable insights, guidance, and diverse perspectives to enhance the fund's decision-making and governance processes.
— Analyst will be hired and Advisors will be chosen from community mambers deep invested in Polka eco.
— The Manager is a CFA charteholder with long experience in tradfi and crypto markets.
2.
The goal is achieving a multiple on invested capital (MOIC) exceeding 1.5x, ensuring returning the DOT raised. If the funds can not be returned to the treasury, a proposal will be made for to decide between a later burn or a reinviestment/follow on.
I have multiple questions
1. What specific criteria and due diligence processes will the investment committee employ to evaluate and select projects for funding? How do these criteria align with the overarching goals of the Polkadot ecosystem, and how will they contribute to its growth and sustainability?
2. How is the financial viability of the fund ensured over the long term, especially given the absence of an annual management fee? How will the fund maintain operational sustainability while also achieving a notable return on investments for its stakeholders?
3. What measures are in place to guarantee transparency and accountability in fund management, investment decisions, and reporting? How will the governance structure, including the role of the investment committee, ensure prudent and effective use of the fund’s resources while minimizing conflicts of interest and other potential governance issues?
@captain_lewis First of all thanks for investing time in my discussion.
Answer is not limited as different scenarios may present different criteria. Each accelerator deployment should undergo a thorough and primary evaluation but not limited to:
Innovative Idea: Assess the uniqueness and innovation of the business idea. Is this a proyect that will push mass adoption of the tecnology, will this make DOT more user friendly, etc.
2. Team Evaluation:
Founders' Expertise: Assess the qualifications and experience of the founding team in developing cripto proyects, this offc includes a KYC and; Commitment: Determine the founders' dedication and willingness to commit to the project full-time.
3. Technology Assessment:
MVP: Review the development stage of the product or technology. Technology timeframe: This initiative is not intended to found proyects with longer timelines. We need to accelerate DOT now.
4. Financial Viability:
Review the startup's financial model, including revenue projections, cost structure, and cash flow (probebly none). And Assess how much pre-seed funding is required and how it will be used.
5. Risk assesment:
Evaluate the startup's ability to execute its business plan. And, consider any potential team-related risks.
Every criterion should naturally be assessed with a focus on aligning with the ecosystem's core principles of security, interoperability, scalability, and upgradeability. An aspect I consistently deem as vital is the encouragement of a growing developer community, fostering application development on the platform and contributing to its expansion. This also stems from the opportunities created through funding. Programmers establish sustainability, while users contribute to the success of networks.
The accelerator is structured with three phases, each featuring changing incentives and objectives. The The absence of an annual fee, coupled with a 10% carry, reflects the alignment of incentives aimed at preventing intentional delays in fund deployment of course im open to any suggetions for the accelerator tu may have a better aligment of any incentives. The sustainability of the accelerator hinges on the success of the initial stage and approval from DOT stakeholders for the subsequent second and third stages. It's essential to emphasize that the accelerator's primary focus leans more towards its role as an accelerator rather than that of a traditional venture capital firm.
That's an excellent question, and I'm receptive to feedback on this matter. As In web3 governance structures, transparency and accountability there are significant challenges.