This consultation aims to secure a GYFI budget to engage and compensate Gyroscope DAO service providers. Service providers may assist with marketing campaigns, business strategy, or liquidity provisioning.
Summary of proposal
It is proposed that a GYFI budget of 75 000 GYFI be allocated to fund marketing campaigns.
It is proposed that a GYFI budget of 205 500 GYFI be allocated to trading firms.
It is proposed that a GYFI budget of 13 700 GYFI be allocated to fund other business service providers.
Purpose
Budget [as % of total GYFI supply]
Marketing
0.55%
Trading firms
1.5%
Other
0.1%
The initial token distribution event is a critical point in any project’s trajectory. It warrants special attention and care. In order to structure and support the initial token distribution it is necessary to engage several service providers which will support Gyroscope’s decentralized ecosystem. These can range from providing paid marketing services, over advising and supporting the business strategy, to providing liquidity providing services.
Marketing services will help raise the public profile of Gyroscope leading up to and following the public token distribution, as defined by [GIP-1] and [GIP-2]. Trading firms are necessary to ensure sufficient, initial liquidity for GYFI. Other service providers may act as brokers or as means to keep liquidity providing operations transparent and accountable.
The allocated budget sets the upper bound on what can be spent on the previously described services. If the budget is not fully allocated by the end of Q1 2025 (31.03.2025) any remaining funds are to be returned to the Gyroscope Foundation.
I would like to ask, once this budget is approved, I assume that there will be a vote for each of those service providers, to actually allocate portion of the budget to them, right?
I agree with @PanCake’s comment above. The budget is reasonable, and it would be great to see individual proposals from each service provider. Clear scope of work, timelines, some type of reporting requirements, and team members.
I would also suggest that down the road we at Gyroscope propose to adopt a set of Service Provider Standards and or a code of conduct. The goal would be to make it clear what is expected as status quo for those who work on the DAOs behalf. Similar to Balancer’s framework.
Thanks for putting together this budget proposal. Believe allocating resources for marketing, trading firms, and other essential services is the next necessary step to ensure a successful GYFI launch and the healthy growth of the Gyroscope ecosystem. The proposed budget amounts seem reasonable as an initial framework.
I strongly echo the points raised by @PanCake and @Zen_Dragon. While this proposal effectively sets the overall budget ceilings, the next crucial step will be the process of selecting and engaging individual service providers within these categories.
Specifically, I believe it’s vital that we have a clear and transparent process for allocating portions of this budget. As @PanCake pointed out, will there be individual votes or proposals required for each service provider before they are engaged? Understanding this process upfront will be important for community trust and governance.
Building on that, I wholeheartedly agree with @Zen_Dragon’s suggestion of requiring individual proposals from each potential service provider. These proposals should clearly outline:
Scope of Work: What specific services will they provide?
Timelines: When will these services be delivered?
Reporting Requirements: How will the DAO track progress and measure the effectiveness of their work?
Team Members: Who will be the key individuals working on the project?
This level of detail will allow the DAO to make informed decisions and ensure we are getting the best value for our allocated funds.
Furthermore, I think @Zen_Dragon’s suggestion of developing Service Provider Standards or a Code of Conduct down the line is excellent. Establishing clear expectations for those working on behalf of the DAO will contribute to a more professional and accountable ecosystem. Looking at examples like Balancer’s framework is a great starting point.
I agree with this proposal and find the budget allocation reasonable.
To strengthen it, I suggest requiring detailed proposals from service providers, including scope, timelines, reporting and team, as others have pointed out.
Additionally, establishing Service Provider Standards or a Code of Conduct for professionalism, as suggested earlier, would be beneficial.
Lastly, adding a basic risk assessment would improve transparency and preparedness.
Looking forward to the next steps!
I fully support this perspective. The budget must include clear timelines, detailed scope, and milestones. Without this level of clarity, the governance process loses its purpose, as members cannot make informed decisions on whether to approve or reject the proposal.
If specific timelines, scope, and milestones cannot be outlined, it may be more appropriate to allocate the tokens to The Gyroscope Foundation (or another entity if governance deems it suitable) and entrust them with the responsibility to lead and manage these projects.
GM, Exited for another Proposal but I am not entirely sure about the exact purpose of this, as there are insufficient details provided for each section. What needs to be clarified is:
Marketing Campaign Budget:
What will happen after approving the proposed budget for marketing campaigns? Will there be another proposal to design and discuss the exact criteria by the DAO, or will it be solely designed by @ftl-labs, as was done previously?
Trading firms
I assume the trading firms mentioned here refer to market makers, tasked with ensuring sufficient liquidity at TGE. If that is the case, what are the terms of these agreements? Are the tokens allocated through an option contract with a strike price? I believe there should be another proposal providing exact details, similar to the Cowswap DAO Market Maker Agreement Proposal.
Service Providers:
Who are the service providers, and what are their contributions to the DAO? It would be helpful to have more information about this. Additionally, their token allocation should also be subject to vesting, similar to community tokens.
As I explained above, each section requires further information if decisions are going to be made through the DAO, whether to approve or reject the proposal. I don’t see any valid points in the current proposal, as all three mentioned allocations require dedicated proposals that clearly explain the exact details.
I suggest that more detailed information be provided, as regardless of whether the vote is positive or negative, we need to have full clarity on the details.
I request that a detailed report on how the budget will be utilized be published.
Who are the trading firms, and how were they selected?
What are the terms of the agreements?
What specific marketing activities have been planned?
I agree with all the points you mentioned. The proposed plans are very confusing because insufficient details are provided. If the team shares more details, the founding members will be able to make better and more informed decisions.
I think we should ask those who provide services for a detailed proposal, in which they say what they are going to do, when they will finish it, how they will report, and who is in their team, as others have also said.
I fully support the proposed budget allocation as a key step toward the successful launch of the GYFI governance token and the sustainable growth of the Gyroscope ecosystem. However, to maximize the effectiveness of this initiative and align it with the principles of transparency and decentralization, I suggest the following refinements:
Clarity in Plans:
Providing detailed frameworks for marketing campaigns, trading firm agreements, and service provider roles—covering timelines, deliverables, and decision-making processes—will enhance clarity and community alignment.
Professional Standards:
Introducing a Code of Conduct or operational standards for service providers can ensure quality and accountability in their contributions to the DAO.
Risk Mitigation:
Adding a concise risk assessment for the proposed allocations would provide greater transparency and preparedness.
These adjustments would not only strengthen the proposal but also build greater trust and engagement within the community. I am excited about this milestone for Gyroscope and look forward to its successful implementation.
I will happily say yes. I am extremely happy with marketing, but I think trading firms are even more impactful.
As @PanCake ,@emzod ,and @Zen_Dragon mentioned, we should also focus on developing a code of conduct. Additionally, discussing multiple firm votes and voting on the different entities that Gyro will collaborate with is crucial. Working on that aspect will be just as important as determining the allocation numbers.
