Termination of GrantShares and Dissolution of Treasury

[grantshares-dapp]

GrantShares has failed to operate as a functioning DAO. Its design, membership model, review process, and governance mechanisms fail to produce accountability or meaningful outcomes. After more than three years of existence, GrantShares has delivered no measurable benefits to the Neo ecosystem, while actively damaging its credibility, wasting resources, and fostering systemic favoritism.

GrantShares was created to support builders, incentivize innovation, and introduce transparent governance to the Neo ecosystem.

After years of activity, none of these goals has been achieved.

There are:

• no meaningful success cases,
• no sustained builder retention,
• no ecosystem-wide integrations,
• no measurable improvements to the developer experience,
• no transparency in decision-making,
• and no accountability for failed outputs.

Instead of enabling growth, GrantShares has become a bottleneck. Proposals with genuine value are ignored or endlessly questioned, while proposals that meet social proximity, rather than technical merit, are approved quickly and without scrutiny.

2. Non-Representative Governance

The claim that GrantShares represents “collective decision-making” is misleading.

A typical vote looks like this:

• Accept: 4
• Reject: 1
• Abstain: 2

This is not collective governance. It is a small, fixed group that allocates funds based on personal preference. The members who decide who enters the DAO are the same people who were initially appointed, and already control the voting.

This produces a closed loop where:

• insiders select insiders,
• insiders approve insiders,
• dissenters are filtered out before they can even participate.

No external builder can realistically affect outcomes because they are structurally denied any leverage within the system.

3. The Review Process is Arbitrary and Driven by Proximity

There is overwhelming evidence that proposals are not evaluated by merit or contribution.

3.1. Constructive builders receive extreme scrutiny for trivial amounts

Projects such as Neo Red Pill or Reddon News requested modest funding (< USD 500), and were met with:

• dozens of questions,
• more than 30 back-and-forth responses,
• exhaustive nitpicking,
• and a lot of delay.

These proposers are real community members, producing content, maintaining a presence, and actively engaging with users. It's not like they're requesting thousands of dollars every month.

3.2. Outsiders with no track record receive privileged treatment

Proposal #152. The applicant, a luxury real estate executive with no commits, no documentation, no forum history, and no ecosystem engagement, requested USD 2,000 for a trip to Dubai.

His justification was vague: “deepen conversations” and “explore opportunities.”

The RFP explicitly stated:

• Only contributors to the ecosystem should apply.
• Travel grants were for active builders lacking resources.

He met neither requirement. Yet the proposal was approved.
This was not “risk.”It was favoritism.

Months later:

• there are no results,
• no integrations,
• no reports,
• no public deliverables,
• no innovation channel output,
• and the applicant no longer responds.

Those who endorsed the proposal also show no interest in accountability. This is a governance failure, not a funding risk.

4. The Model Encourages Irresponsibility and Indifference

As a former recipient of funds myself, I can attest that the members do not care about the outcomes**** of what they fund.

In my case:

• I repeatedly documented structural issues in the ecosystem,
• highlighted the mismatches between stated goals and real operations,
• proposed improvements and analysis.

None of it mattered. It was like being hired to deliver work that nobody intends to read, review, or value. Some members do not dedicate any time at all.

Others do, but lack the technical knowledge to evaluate proposals. The result is always the same: decisions are decoupled from competence.

Approving funds to someone who contributes nothing is easy. Holding them accountable is impossible. And scrutinizing real builders is effortless, because there is no cost to rejecting them.

5. The Membership System Produces Dead Weight

Being a GrantShares member offers:

• no meaningful responsibilities,
• no measurable expectations,
• no external accountability,
• and no consequences for negligence.

It is unsurprising that:

• most members contribute nothing,
• some do not understand the ecosystem,
• and others operate with clear conflicts of interest.

The current structure incentivizes inertia and irresponsible spending:

• GrantShares has failed to operate as a functioning DAO. Its design, membership model, review process, and governance mechanisms fail to produce accountability or meaningful outcomes. After more than three years of existence, GrantShares has delivered no measurable benefits to the Neo ecosystem, while actively damaging its credibility, wasting resources, and fostering systemic favoritism.

GrantShares was created to support builders, incentivize innovation, and introduce transparent governance to the Neo ecosystem.

After years of activity, none of these goals has been achieved.

There are:

• no meaningful success cases,
• no sustained builder retention,
• no ecosystem-wide integrations,
• no measurable improvements to the developer experience,
• no transparency in decision-making,
• and no accountability for failed outputs.

Instead of enabling growth, GrantShares has become a bottleneck. Proposals with genuine value are ignored or endlessly questioned, while proposals that meet social proximity, rather than technical merit, are approved quickly and without scrutiny.

6. The GrantShares Model Does Not Work

Fundamentally, the system is unsalvageable.

Key design flaws:

• People with no subject-matter expertise can approve or reject complex proposals.
• There is no standardized review layer.
• There is no respect for RFPs.
• There is no on-chain accountability.
• There is no budget logic.

This is not a DAO.

It is a static whitelist of voters with arbitrary power. And because the membership gatekeepers protect their own interests, this proposal will likely be rejected.

Conclusion

GrantShares has failed:

• Institutionally,
• structurally,
• and culturally.

Its existence actively harms the Neo ecosystem by:

• discouraging builders,
• rewarding proximity over merit,
• eroding credibility,
• and burning treasury with no follow-through.
• occupying the space of a true DAO, which cannot co-exist in the current model.

For these reasons, this proposal recommends terminating GrantShares and dissolving its treasury.

---

Proposal Info 📋

• Proposal Type: remove-token

• Token: 0xd2a4cff31913016155e38e474a2c06d08be276cf (GAS)

• Created by: @lock9 🚀

• Proposal : https://grantshares.io/app/details/1bc359cd073735be06a1d6c2eebe6c48

• Linked Proposal: https://grantshares.io/app/details/09a1eee71bfc20c48c7b3a680425d105

• Raw Intents: 👀

[ {
  "target_contract" : "0x6276c1e3a68280bc6c9c00df755fb691be1162ef",
  "method" : "removeWhitelistedToken",
  "params" : [ {
    "type" : "Hash160",
    "value" : "d2a4cff31913016155e38e474a2c06d08be276cf"
  } ],
  "call_flags" : 15
} ]

---

👇 React with 👍 if you liked it, or 👎 if you think this proposal can be enhanced!

[gsmachado]

@lock9, thanks for the proposal!

Let's see if the community and, most importantly, DAO members who spent lots of their time on GrantShares, think that this is a good proposal or not.

---

Just FYI: remove-token (whitelisted) as proposal type is not right. This only removes the ability of a particular token to be deposited in the GrantShares Treasury -- given that the DAO doesn't want to allow any tokens to be randomly sent to the Treasury. A more appropriate proposal (for the goal you have) would be to send all funds from the treasury back to Neo Foundation. This can be done through a "request for funding" proposal.

[deanragnarok]

I think some balance and context is needed here, so I would like to offer my view for the benefit of others reading along.

Is GrantShares perfect? No. But is it necessary? Absolutely. The ecosystem needs funding pathways outside of NGD and the Neo Foundation, and removing the only community-governed mechanism we have without a viable replacement helps no one.

It is important to clarify what GrantShares actually is. The voting members here receive no financial incentive, and reviewing proposals properly takes a significant amount of time and energy on top of the responsibilities many of us already carry.
It is true that smaller proposals often receive more comments, but I don’t think the reason is because they are being scrutinised more harshly. It is simply that they are easier to digest in one sitting, which naturally leads to more engagement. Others, such as the Solar DePIN proposal currently under review, require hours of reading, context gathering, and cross-checking. Proposals of that scale often end up in the too-hard basket simply because people do not have the time in their day to give them the deep attention they require.

That does not mean members are negligent, do not care, or do not want to. It is simply the reality a group doing the best it can within limited time and capacity. This is one of the reasons GrantShares has been making changes to expand that capacity.

GrantShares has recently taken steps to broaden participation. We opened applications to new members this year and welcomed NEOF1, NDMEME, and Charlie Sun into the group, with Charlie later stepping back due to other commitments. Increasing the number of active participants helps share the workload and reduces the likelihood that larger proposals sit untouched simply because nobody has the time available to process them. There were only two unsuccessful applicants, and in both cases the applications did not demonstrate relevant experience or present a strong case. So far from being a closed loop of insiders, GrantShares has actively invited in new voices and each new member introduces perspectives and voting dynamics that the existing group cannot predetermine. I can say with certainty the voting group will increase again at some point.

We are also discussing the introduction of a dedicated paid role for first-pass reviews, following up on executed proposals, and proactively bringing in new ones. @gsmachado has already vetted several candidates - all from outside our ecosystem. This idea is still at an early stage, but it shows GrantShares is not complacent or settled. It is not a silver bullet, but it is one of several improvements being explored. We are actively trying to strengthen the process and address the capacity constraints that naturally arise from a volunteer-based model.

Nobody here thinks GrantShares is flawless. But people are putting in time, thought, and personal effort to make it better. Removing the entire whole DAO does not fix anything. It simply creates a vacuum.

On the Cidade Matarazzo proposal, I actually agree with one of the underlying critiques. NNT voted no, and I do not believe GrantShares was the right place for that grant. Where we diverge sharply is the conclusion. I do not see this as evidence of insider collusion or self-interest. CM did not need the funds, but after meeting them at Centre Point, I think it showed them that the ecosystem was serious about embracing them. What their participation offered was an opportunity to build a relationship with what could become the largest real-world project Neo has ever been involved in. If that grant helped open that door, and it may have, then the ecosystem could still benefit greatly from it.

It is also possible that some members simply overlooked the requirement to be actively building in the ecosystem. That is a mistake, not a conspiracy. A system can be critical about how it applies its own criteria without invalidating the entire structure. Mistakes should be acknowledged and learned from. But treating a single misstep as justification to dissolve the entire DAO is disproportionate.

I also want to address one final point directly. I do not accept the idea that GrantShares has failed completely, that it discourages builders, or that it provides no meaningful value. The history of the platform shows the opposite. Over the years, GrantShares has supported a long list of teams who have gone on to contribute to the ecosystem in meaningful ways. These include Cassette, Frankcoin, cNEO, ForTheWin, BattleHardened, Pixudi, NDMEME, and NeoRedPill. All of these teams added value to the ecosystem, and became part of the broader community. Some have since moved on, but that is not a GrantShares problem. There are also some grant recipients who delivered but did not become tightly integrated with the community, like AlphaDay or MelkDAO. These projects all vary in size and impact, but all directly benefited from GrantShares support.

More recently, we have seen new teams such as Innfork, Vaulten, Reddon, and Raihno come through GrantShares and they are either delivering or building right now.

Of course, not every team we have funded has gone on to long-term success. That is simply the nature of this industry. Grant funding requires a leap of faith, and sometimes a project does not survive due to timing, market conditions, the reality that not every idea turns to be a good one, or that sometimes people just let you down. That is not a failure unique to GrantShares. It is part of how open innovation ecosystems work. What matters is that GrantShares has consistently provided opportunities.

I am also proud of the Centre Point travel grants. Historically, in-person ecosystem gatherings were accessible mainly to a small group of long-term participants. None of us want that dynamic to continue. If you want decentralisation and representation, you need more voices in the room, quite literally. For Centre Point, I personally spent time reaching out to ecosystem members and encouraging them to submit proposals for travel support. Most people who did not had scheduling conflicts, not barriers to applying. We're really trying to reduce the structural barriers that can limit participation. I have always believed that bringing more voices into the room, including critical ones, is ultimately healthier for the ecosystem than closing doors.

So while we may not have been perfect, and yes, we should continue learning from the travel grants that did not hit the mark, I still believe the initiative has been hugely successful. It broadened the conversation and is working towards changing the dynamic that Neo events are only for insiders. If anything, I would like to double or triple the number of travel grants next time, because that is how you create a genuinely representative ecosystem.

As I have been writing this, it has occurred to me that perhaps something constructive can come out of this exchange. When I look back over the proposals that have seen high engagement and clear consensus versus the ones that struggle, there is a pattern. We are consistently stronger at reviewing and approving small-to-medium grants than very large ones. The platform technically allows funding up to $50k, but some proposals at that scale require industry-specific knowledge, deeper due diligence, or time commitments that simply are not realistic for an unpaid, volunteer-based group. They also present greater risk and are less likely to succeed.

There may be real value in GrantShares discussing whether we want to focus more deliberately on micro and grassroots-level funding. These are the kinds of grants where we have historically had the clearest outcomes, the strongest consensus, and the most tangible ecosystem impact. Focusing on grassroots builders would not a reduction in ambition, but maybe recognising where our processes are most effective.

That does not mean larger grants should not exist. The ecosystem absolutely needs a pathway for builders seeking more substantial support without going straight to EcoGrowth. But perhaps this is an area for future refinement, where we are honest about where GrantShares strengths lie and consider how the broader ecosystem might fill the gap for larger funding needs. I do not have the final answer to that, but it seems like a worthwhile conversation for the platform to have.

GrantShares is not perfect, but it is not broken beyond repair either. We are actively improving it, and people are giving their own time to make it better. Removing it entirely would eliminate one of the few community-governed pathways we have at a time when we should be expanding participation, not narrowing it.

[lock9]

Is GrantShares perfect? No. But is it necessary? Absolutely. The ecosystem needs funding pathways outside of NGD and the Neo Foundation, and removing the only community-governed mechanism we have without a viable replacement helps no one.

The absence of an alternative does not imply usefulness. The problem you describe is real, but GrantShares amplifies it rather than solving it.

It is important to clarify what GrantShares actually is. The voting members here receive no financial incentive, and reviewing proposals properly takes a significant amount of time and energy on top of the responsibilities many of us already carry.

You are confirming that members lack the time to make competent assessments, which explains why only proposals aligned with their personal networks move forward.
And the claim that you are “unpaid” ignores reality. GrantShares members benefit from ecosystem contracts, CN rewards, and brand power. Incentives exist, but they are not tied to outcomes.

That does not mean members are negligent, do not care, or do not want to. It is simply the reality a group doing the best it can within limited time and capacity. This is one of the reasons GrantShares has been making changes to expand that capacity.

If approving proposals without time, diligence, or alignment with published requirements is not negligence, then what is it?
Case #152 was not an edge-case misunderstanding. It violated every rule in writing and was still approved.

I also want to address one final point directly. I do not accept the idea that GrantShares has failed completely, that it discourages builders, or that it provides no meaningful value. The history of the platform shows the opposite. Over the years, GrantShares has supported a long list of teams who have gone on to contribute to the ecosystem in meaningful ways. These include Cassette, Frankcoin, cNEO, ForTheWin, BattleHardened, Pixudi, NDMEME, and NeoRedPill. All of these teams added value to the ecosystem, and became part of the broader community. Some have since moved on, but that is not a GrantShares problem. There are also some grant recipients who delivered but did not become tightly integrated with the community, like AlphaDay or MelkDAO. These projects all vary in size and impact, but all directly benefited from GrantShares support.

Given the time elapsed and the resources consumed, these outcomes are negligible. Pixudi is a perfect example. The fact that such a project was approved illustrates a deeper truth: decisions are driven by social proximity, not technical merit, contribution, or accountability.

As I have been writing this, it has occurred to me that perhaps something constructive can come out of this exchange. When I look back over the proposals that have seen high engagement and clear consensus versus the ones that struggle, there is a pattern. We are consistently stronger at reviewing and approving small-to-medium grants than very large ones. The platform technically allows funding up to $50k, but some proposals at that scale require industry-specific knowledge, deeper due diligence, or time commitments that simply are not realistic for an unpaid, volunteer-based group. They also present greater risk and are less likely to succeed.

The problem is real. GrantShares simply fails to solve it. It is not a DAO in any meaningful sense. DAOs require distributed power, transparent rules, and enforceable accountability. GrantShares provides none of these. The way that it tries to portray mismanagement as "risk" also shows how far from reality the maintainers are.

#152 is not a discussion breakdown; it is a demonstration that the outcome was predetermined. Reviewers attempted to coax the applicant into saying the “right words”, and even that failed. The proposal still passed.
You are also confirming that the current solution is insufficient.

There may be real value in GrantShares discussing whether we want to focus more deliberately on micro and grassroots-level funding. These are the kinds of grants where we have historically had the clearest outcomes, the strongest consensus, and the most tangible ecosystem impact. Focusing on grassroots builders would not a reduction in ambition, but maybe recognising where our processes are most effective.

The current structure does not foster competence, accountability, or continuity. Voters are shielded from consequences.
When outcomes do not matter, judgment becomes arbitrary by design.

That does not mean larger grants should not exist. The ecosystem absolutely needs a pathway for builders seeking more substantial support without going straight to EcoGrowth. But perhaps this is an area for future refinement, where we are honest about where GrantShares strengths lie and consider how the broader ecosystem might fill the gap for larger funding needs. I do not have the final answer to that, but it seems like a worthwhile conversation for the platform to have.

GrantShares provides nothing that a basic multisig does not. It already struggles with microgrants. Scaling this model to larger requests would be catastrophic.

GrantShares is not perfect, but it is not broken beyond repair either. We are actively improving it, and people are giving their own time to make it better. Removing it entirely would eliminate one of the few community-governed pathways we have at a time when we should be expanding participation, not narrowing it.

Your answer recognizes the symptoms while defending the system that produces them. GrantShares is not an imperfect solution; it is fundamentally misaligned. You can drive a nail with a frozen steak, but that doesn’t make the steak a hammer.

Three years later, GrantShares has not evolved. A small group with limited time, unclear incentives, and no accountability remains in control. If the platform had examined even a handful of existing DAO governance models, it would never have been designed this way.

Lastly, aren't you forgetting about something?

[lock9]

Almost forgot about this part:

What their participation offered was an opportunity to build a relationship with what could become the largest real-world project Neo has ever been involved in. If that grant helped open that door, and it may have, then the ecosystem could still benefit greatly from it.

I’m sorry, but this is not an argument; it is an attempt to justify a bad decision retroactively. How exactly would a physical, locally-tied activation in a country where fewer than 5% of the population speaks English create more benefit for the ecosystem than any digital-first initiative with global reach?

From every event that Item Systems has participated in, there is no visible result, no measurable impact, and no adoption to point to. So instead of “opening doors”, what we actually see is a subsidised marketing effort for Item Systems with zero provable return to Neo.

If we are honest, this “largest real-world project Neo has ever been involved in” only qualifies as “largest” in terms of money spent, not outcomes delivered. That is precisely why judgment here gets distorted: the scale of the real-estate project becomes a proxy for value, even when the expected on-chain outputs are nonexistent.

Believing that such a project could meaningfully cost-effectively benefit Neo is not a strategy. It is wishful thinking.
Neo should not be allocating treasury funds based on hopes of vague future prestige or brand association, especially when there is no historical evidence that this approach has ever worked.

[gsmachado]

What would be a way to measure (and enforce) outcomes in relation to GrantShares request-for-funding proposals? What would be the "success KPI"?

[lock9]

You’re asking how to measure outcomes after more than 3 years of operating GrantShares. That is precisely the problem. You have no idea what you are doing. I could answer the KPI question, but I'm not the one who's getting paid to figure that out.

That’s why I am in favor of ending the platform entirely.
Any palliative measure would only prolong its existence when the correct solution is to terminate it entirely.

[gsmachado]

You have no idea what you are doing.

Asking a question is not the same as not knowing what to do. It seems you get to conclusions too soon, too prematurely. 😄

My aim here is simple: open a productive conversation about KPIs. After years of GrantShares, it’s reasonable to reassess what “success” should look like. In the past, DAO members had several calls discussing this and other problems, but we never reached consensus. We discussed many things, including having a GrantShares token, about DAO members contributing a stake to it to be eligible for voting power, or even about NEO-based voting (snapshot) after a DAO member endorses a proposal. There were always questions like "Is it worth it?", "Will a token complicate things more than help?", "Can we get into legal troubles?", and many others.

I could answer the KPI question, but I'm not the one who's getting paid to figure that out.

If you’re a NEO holder, you do have a stake in this (even if indirectly). GrantShares aim to serve NEO holders, ultimately. So, questioning, proposing, and refining metrics is part of maintaining a healthy DAO and, consequently, a good ecosystem.
If you’re not interested in discussing ways to improve things (maybe because you're not a NEO holder any longer), that’s also fine, but in that case, it’s worth asking: "Why are you even engaging in the first place?"

And, by the way, doors are always open:
If you want to get paid to research this, what about if you make a 'request-for-funding' proposal to the DAO? There, you can even set your own KPIs.

@lock9 Happy to hear any concrete suggestions you might have on KPIs and/or governance!

[Borisitwork]

Ok, I had to say before I started texting, with a clear head. I was really thinking deeply about what I want to say, especially being a member of this organization and a "Proud member" of GrantShares. I don't want to sound like I have a high ego or anything, and I don't want to repeat myself, because my ego is below my feet. Still, for new readers, they can know I've been here 12+ hours a day since the beginning, and I'm the Neo community KOL and creator of the NEOF1 community. I really dedicated my life to Neo community it is a epic journey this life we all have, after many years guys welcomed me in "GrantShares" a organization that is supposed to boost Neo community, bring ( Give a chance ) for new dApps and try to keep/get new people here, who want to build, people who wish to expand Neo ecosystem and provide them nessersery funding as rain and earth to a new seed so that they can grow and by growing new projects we all grow Neo, few projects that found home in NEOF1, or started from it, and few members I directed to GrantShares, including ones that @lock9 mentioned. MAN! We really had to think hard and work hard to get anything for a few 100$ for what? FOR COMMUNITY! for Neo community, hey ( I repeat ) HEY, this is supposed to be for community building, not throwing sticks at running bicycles metaphorically and sabotaging progress with so many unnecessary things for a few $100. At the same time, some of Council members enjoy 47000 $GAS per year, I know very good what I'm talking about here 100%, I'm the heart of community I live this daily, I see almost zero new members, zero new dApps, just less and less users, all I see is abossltley worthless hachatons with zero results, who cares if someone will create wallet in one time event at hachaton and never use Neo again in life, or eat and drink good one time and never again look at Neo or build anything on it, I know very well this is 100% true, all this hachatons bring zero value to Neo community absolutely 0, compelete money wasting and complet mismanament of fundings. There is absolutely nothing going on in the community; a few active builders are just guys with a passion that I know and support, not getting almost anything, a few pennies now and there.

Another big thing that is a fact, and absolutely nobody can deny this. Before the new incentive for new members, it was done because the majority of members were almost absent from voting or showed little to no interest in voting in GrantShares. There are a few who really do express themselves like @deanragnarok , but my point remains the same. Before NEOF1 and NDMEME were added as members, I know this was free work, but man, let's be real, what @deanragnarok told:

"It is important to clarify what GrantShares actually is. The voting members here receive no financial incentive, and reviewing proposals properly takes a significant amount of time and energy on top of the responsibilities many of us already carry."

This is not true, you all [ ALL MEMBERS OF GrantShares ] must be financially incentivized because you all are members of the top 21 a Neo council, and your nodes get 47000 GAS per year, how the hell is this not a financial incentive? ( Are we in some parallel universe? ) Or more money needs to be added for GrantShares already council members, saying it is free is complete BS, sorry for my language; this is a fact.

I really have nothing personal about GrantShares members, but let's put aside if we like each other or not, we are talking about a siruious organization here that is dedicated to fund and help community members and help boost Neo ecosystem, and all I see is compelte 0%, as I mentioned no new buildeers, no new active members, only wasting money on wortheles hachatons that bring zero resoluts, 0% acountability yes ZERO, zero report to community, many council nodes are complete parasites community have zero idea what they do. Why are they getting 47000 GAS per year? There is absolutely zero transparency with the Neo community. These people are Neo itself. Neo is = Community = People. Are we a community project or a private company? Suppose we are a community project representing the whole Neo community. In that case, I no longer accept being a DAO member of this organization, the GrantShares program, as it has completely failed the community. I need to agree with @lock9 about some stuff he mentioned. My next post will be my submission to leave GrantShares as a DAO member, as I don't believe this has produced anything. Yes, the whole process isn't as decentralized as it was supposed to be. This is not benefiting the community. The entire process is just forcing people to leave Neo, and those who are supposed to be rewarded and funded are getting locked out endlessly for no reason, even if legit community members are behind them. We are not doing anything if we are not giving chances where they are needed.

What is the big problem? We are in this situation for a big reason: this has absolutely nothing to do with the market; everything has to do with the mismanagement of people and higher positions. We are here because of bad management. Where are we? At the absolute bottom, why = Because of the management of the Neo ecosystem, and I'm getting sick when I see, after constant failures and failures, the same people come here and try to decide what is next? How can people who failed and brought us here continue to choose new strategies and ideas? Are we a private company? I ask again. The community has had enough of people who failed Neo; we need new leadership and new blood, new people. So far, at the bottom, those are the results; we are at the bottom. In the eyes of the community, these people are not competent to make decisions about Neo's future anymore. I'm sad to text like this, but I speak from my heart.

[ Don't get me wrong, there are many good people/members of GS ] who didn't have the power to change something, but are we all going to be silent, protecting some contract or paycheck? Is money more important than the Neo community members who are the blood of this project? And continue to lose trust by the Neo community and people here, they are the Neo, Neo = People, enough of silence!

Is the GrantShare idea good? Yes, we need something like GrantShares, and GrantShares is an excellent idea for the community. Still, how GrantShares is run and controled is failure, in my opinion we need hard workign dedicated members 20-30 of them, from the community itself, supporting community, and giving chances and controlling new builders 1:1 in many milestones to build trust, yes, it takes time and more effort, maybe stimulate new hard-working members with some small GAS from that 47000 GAS, this is just an idea, why there is no commnity node that is connected with GrantShares and make this run the good and honest way, if you don't have time don't do something = If dedication is not 100%.

The same people only make decisions; naturally, they will organize into a tribe and make decisions = Fail community.

[lock9]

Asking a question is not the same as not knowing what to do. It seems you get to conclusions too soon, too prematurely. 😄

If you know, why aren't there any?

My aim here is simple: open a productive conversation about KPIs. After years of GrantShares, it’s reasonable to reassess what “success” should look like. In the past, DAO members had several calls discussing this and other problems, but we never reached consensus. We discussed many things, including having a GrantShares token, about DAO members contributing a stake to it to be eligible for voting power, or even about NEO-based voting (snapshot) after a DAO member endorses a proposal. There were always questions like "Is it worth it?", "Will a token complicate things more than help?", "Can we get into legal troubles?", and many others.

You are framing your question as if the absence of KPIs were an open philosophical problem. There is no standardized review layer, no milestones, no clawbacks, no consequence framework. Without those primitives, KPIs are cosmetic.

If you’re a NEO holder, you do have a stake in this (even if indirectly). GrantShares aim to serve NEO holders, ultimately. So, questioning, proposing, and refining metrics is part of maintaining a healthy DAO and, consequently, a good ecosystem.
If you’re not interested in discussing ways to improve things (maybe because you're not a NEO holder any longer), that’s also fine, but in that case, it’s worth asking: "Why are you even engaging in the first place?"

That's funny for you to say that, because "Neo Holders" were not even mentioned, and they have absolutely no influence on this so-called "DAO". You think that ending GrantShares would be bad for the ecosystem, but as you can see from my messages, I have an opposite point of view. Ending GrantShares would stop funding a system that produces no outcomes.

And, by the way, doors are always open:
If you want to get paid to research this, what about if you make a 'request-for-funding' proposal to the DAO? There, you can even set your own KPIs.

Sure. Pay me $50k, and I’ll scope it for you. Until then, I’m not doing unpaid consulting.

[lock9]

We are here because of bad management. Where are we? At the absolute bottom, why = Because of the management of the Neo ecosystem, and I'm getting sick when I see, after constant failures and failures, the same people come here and try to decide what is next? How can people who failed and brought us here continue to choose new strategies and ideas?

My opinion is along these lines. I’m not opposed to keeping the name “GrantShares,” but it’s hard to believe that, after three years of no meaningful results, the same people will suddenly produce a different outcome.

[Gravey-z]

As a former recipient of funds myself, I can attest that the members do not care about the outcomes**** of what they fund.

In my case:

* I repeatedly documented structural issues in the ecosystem,

* highlighted the mismatches between stated goals and real operations,

* proposed improvements and analysis.

None of it mattered. It was like being hired to deliver work that nobody intends to read, review, or value. Some members do not dedicate any time at all.

I just wanted to say that I did read the work you did on Linkd Academy, and I actually found it very useful. I realize I never said anything at the time, that’s my mistake, but your work was genuinely appreciated.

I also believe there are many others like me who read it, valued it, but never said anything. For a long time I wasn’t really engaging much in the ecosystem and mostly lurked in the background, only recently becoming more active. But your contributions absolutely did matter.

[DylanNNT]

A disgruntled and disgraced ex-community member who a) threatened to burn the entire Neo ecosystem to the ground years before ragequitting, b) who continues to smear people and projects in the ecosystem after he "left the ecosystem," and c) who didn't muster votes to get a travel grant to Centre Point #1 because of his past actions, treatment of others, and abysmal acceptance of personal responsibility, wants to burn GrantShares to the ground? I am shocked /s

This is obviously a No vote, and this proposal should be seen as what it clearly is.... A direct attempt to waste people's time and steal energy from the people who are still here trying to nourish what energy remains in the ecosystem.

Coming from a team that has reviewed, discussed, and voted on nearly every GS submission, I for one am proud to have been a steward of the treasury and distributed funds to successful projects like Dean mentioned. I also accept that some failures were made in the dissemination of funds to some projects who shouldn't have been awarded.

But, this is the Catch-22 of being part of a governance system. Either we distribute too many funds to too many project who don't deserve them and are seen as extravagant in our approvals, or we're viewed as misers who take too long to make decisions and support too few proposals.

GrantShares is the only opportunity we have as a community to fund projects outside the purview of NGD, which is even more reason why we should be as prudent as we have been in disseminating funding. And yet another reason why this entity is so important, because the next grassroots success could be right around the corner.

@Borisitwork I really don't think you should leave GS. You're a voting member who arose from the managing community forums and bring a unique aspect of the users that many voting members don't have (because they're too engineering/development focused). If anything, the DAO needs more members like you, because projects like Reddon's TikTok campaign got funded, largely because the newer voting members drove that conversation and helped change the opinion of other voting members.

If you're reading this, are not part of GrantShares, and have valuable contributions for how the DAO can be improved, then please put forth a proposal or add your commentary in this thread. I'd love to have more thoughtful community members like that in the community funding DAO.

[gsmachado]

@Borisitwork I really don't think you should leave GS. You're a voting member who arose from the managing community forums and bring a unique aspect of the users that many voting members don't have [...]. If anything, the DAO needs more members like you, [...].

☝️ I completely agree with this. @Borisitwork, you are a valuable asset not only to GS but also to bring opportunities to community members. That's why I'd like you to stay as a DAO member, providing your opinions, and helping the DAO on decisions.

I already shared this in presentations, but let me share this here once again: The DAO still has plans to (a) onboard more DAO members (through RFPs), as well as (b) to bring professionals who would "scout" projects with good potential (mainly outside of our ecosystem) and help onboarding + guiding them through a GrantShares proposal journey. The point (b) is challenging, given that we have to establish relationships and set expectations, but we're in talks with a few people. Let's see how it goes.

[lock9]

A disgruntled and disgraced ex-community member who a) threatened to burn the entire Neo ecosystem to the ground years before ragequitting, b) who continues to smear people and projects in the ecosystem after he "left the ecosystem," and c) who didn't muster votes to get a travel grant to Centre Point #1 because of his past actions, treatment of others, and abysmal acceptance of personal responsibility, wants to burn GrantShares to the ground? I am shocked /s

Dylan, you are just jealous because your content...sucks. Your articles are superficial, and your podcast and Twitter space are equally bad. You have a very low IQ, which explains the quality of your work and why you feel so entitled to talk about stuff. You are ignorant.

You are also one of the reasons why the current format doesn't work. You should not be allowed to vote. You are just too stupid, and because of your lack of technical skills, you can't understand what's going on under the hood. Also, you are always trying to protect your friends, with absolutely no care for the ecosystem. You think you are better, but that's just because you are too blessed to understand your position in the world.

Of course, I've seen how you vote 😂 "I, I, I", always about how your ego feels. You should not vote because you do not have the competence to do so.

GrantShares is the only opportunity we have as a community to fund projects outside the purview of NGD, which is even more reason why we should be as prudent as we have been in disseminating funding.

Prudent when it comes to other people, and even more strict when it's about content, right?

But, this is the Catch-22 of being part of a governance system. Either we distribute too many funds to too many project who don't deserve them and are seen as extravagant in our approvals, or we're viewed as misers who take too long to make decisions and support too few proposals.

Of course, that's precisely how it works! "Either give money or don't give money".
You should have eaten your vegetables when you were a child. Now look at you, saying all these stupid things. You think giving free beer at events is meaningful. You try to hide your peers' wrongdoings by creating low-quality articles, trying to say that "there's a lot of activity", when there is none.

So far, I haven't seen any counterarguments to what I posted, but honestly, I didn't expect anything from you. You try to frame this as something that happened "after my actions", but unlike you, I'm not dumb. I know exactly when things happened, and why or how it happened.

You and Tyler are mainly responsible for the current ecosystem situation. When was the last time you posted anything that got more than 100 views? Your content sucks, you are dumb, and you should not be allowed to vote!

I already shared this in presentations, but let me share this here once again: The DAO still has plans to (a) onboard more DAO members (through RFPs), as well as (b) to bring professionals who would "scout" projects with good potential (mainly outside of our ecosystem) and help onboarding + guiding them through a GrantShares proposal journey. The point (b) is challenging, given that we have to establish relationships and set expectations, but we're in talks with a few people. Let's see how it goes.

In the meantime, you keep earning from your contract and CN node. At this pace, Neo will be worth less than 3 USD by the end of next year.

I just wanted to say that I did read the work you did on Linkd Academy, and I actually found it very useful. I realize I never said anything at the time, that’s my mistake, but your work was genuinely appreciated.

I also believe there are many others like me who read it, valued it, but never said anything. For a long time I wasn’t really engaging much in the ecosystem and mostly lurked in the background, only recently becoming more active. But your contributions absolutely did matter.

Thanks! Unfortunately, I was seen as a problem by those who wanted to keep the truth hidden. The results are here for everyone to see, and they are terrible to say the least.