@bowtiedshrike@SB23@timrpeterson@EliMo@proofofsteve, thank you for the comments, questions, and suggestion. This is the healthy exchange of opinions that is needed to finalize the proposal. I could try to address each and every point that has been raised, but I prefer to share my quick take and leave room to whoever wishes to share an opinion. So here are my loose and hopefully short thoughts.
Note that all this discussion is about what qualifies as longevity, which is just one of the criteria. Still itâs kind of a defining criterion for a longevity DAO.
In fact there is an important difference: the Nature paper mentions not only treating diseases, like we did, but also preventing them. This is more stringent, because it requires extreme safety, as pointed out by @SB23.
More stringent criteria are actually what we are after, because one of the pain points addressed by this proposal is that, indeed, we are seeing a lot of submissions that for one reason or another donât fit what the community expects. This is a problem for both the DAO, which has to invest lots of time and resources in screening and incubating, and for applicants, who invest lots of time in proposing and interacting with us.
Concerning giving examples of whatâs in scope or not, I tend to prefer giving loose guidelines and letting reviewers and the community interpret them, the same opinion as @timrpeterson. Giving examples would require to choose and carefully word a large number of them in order to give enough coverage and avoid misunderstanding. In addition, we already have some reasonably good examples of what we like to fund, the proposals that already passed. And the more we assess and fund proposals, the clearer it becomes, and referring to the latest ones can also give a more dynamic view that automatically reflects the evolution of what the community likes, as it changes over time.
@timrpeterson@Paolo I agree with âlet the community decideâ. The problem is that loose guidelines in this proposal will prevent the community from doing that.
As I understand it, this VDP concerns a pass/fail initial screening that is not done by the community. This means that a screener with a narrow view of longevity research would fail a proposal that someone with a broader view of longevity would pass. I would prefer guidelines that even the playing field so that itâs not âluck of the screenerâ.
If the guidelines need to be more stringent, as Paolo indicated, in what way do they need to be more stringent? Even the material needed to pass these new criteria will take a fair amount of work for the applicants. If we make expectations clear up front, it will save everyone time and trouble.
Thatâs why I think that for this initial screening, the criterion needs a more clear aims and scope.
The initial screeners are a democracy. All 3 phases of governance are a democracy. We can give each phase participants guidelines but ultimately it is their choice. To me, the guidelines are clear enough. As in any kind of voting process, itâs the job of the individual applicants to gauge what the community wants - even if the community is highly divided.
@Paolo Yeah this is a common problem. One way to handle spam problems is to require those submitting proposals to place a certain amount of $VITA into escrow in order to submit the proposal. It does not need to be a large amount. The flow is something like as follows:
Applicant who wants to make a proposal places $100 worth of $VITA into Escrow.
Applicant submits their proposal to the initial screening process.
Person from Vita who is in charge of screening looks at proposal.
3a. If proposal passes screening (is seen as within Vita purview and high quality) applicant gets their escrowed funds back, and proposal passes on to secondary screening stage.
3b. If proposal does not pass screening (is not within purview or high quality) tokens are burned.
3c. If itâs maybe on the fence or needs some revisions, that can be handled on a case by case basis.
This kind of system, gated voting, has often been used by other DAOs to prevent spam votes. It has the benefits of providing an additional use case for $VITA, buying pressure, and possible deflation as well.
Thereâs obviously a lot of room for variation here. You can lower the amount to just 1 $VITA and that will get rid of very low effort spam, simply because most spammers wonât pay any amount of money, but you can also increase it if what youâre seeing is a lot of submissions that are maybe not from âspammersâ but are from people who havenât fully thought things through who you want to encourage to be more diligent before submitting. Could advise further if I better understood that.
Hello, based on the previous conversation and the votes received, I plan to publish the proposal on snapshot edited as follows:
Replace âThe proposed criteria are split into the following categoriesâ with âThe proposed pass/fail criteria are split into the following categoriesâ add that the criteria are pass/fail
Replace âtreat multiple age-related diseases [8]â with âtreat or prevent multiple age-related diseases [8]â
This seems like this community is soon to be gated.
Does not look well for me at this time since I am still writing my proposal, I do not know how to view this.
I best submit before you close the gates.