Hi team, thanks for sharing this—it’s clear a lot of thought and effort has gone into Project Miró and shaping the future direction of ParaSwap. Well done! On the whole, very much agree with the ambition and timing of this proposal. @SEEDGov makes plenty of good suggestions and points that I’d reemphasise. The broader scope for the DAO also feels like the right step forward, and the proposed token distribution seems reasonable.
That said, I do have a couple of concerns around the grants program and the DAO’s involvement:
Forced Participation in Governance for Grant Recipients. While I understand the desire to ensure alignment between grant recipients and the DAO, I am not entirely convinced that forcing them to participate directly in governance is always optimal as it could add significant workload when, in my opinion, builders should focus on what they do best: building rather than governance. I see no harm in encouraging builders to participate if there is a desire and willingness to do so, but forcing teams that rather just build doesn’t sound like a good idea to me. Ultimately, this is what delegates are for—to represent the community and oversee alignment. I think a better way to achieve alignment is through clear KPIs and milestone-based funding, where grants are distributed in tranches as measurable milestones are hit to ensure accountability without adding unnecessary responsibilities for grant recipients.
DAO-Wide Involvement on All Grants. To be frank, I don’t think it’s reasonable to involve the whole DAO in evaluating and voting on all grants, which could add significant workload if there are many grant proposals. I believe a more practical solution would be to create a Grants Committee to handle at least the bulk of the evaluation process. As a middle ground, the committee could shortlist proposals for the DAO to vote on to allow the community the final say while keeping the process more efficient.
A few other considerations around best practices for the grants program:
-
Implementing a full lifecycle model and organizing grants into specific cycles and categories can streamline the review process by providing structure, transparency and effective tracking from application to outcomes
-
Allowing partial upfront funding with the majority tied to milestones encourages accountability and measurable progress
-
Establishing a standardized payment structure, such as 20% upfront and the rest tied to milestones, ensures clarity and incentivizes deliverables
-
Using an external grants framework can be helpful to improve efficiency by leveraging established management tools
-
One idea is also to have specific focuses for each grants round to narrow applications and align funding with specific strategic goals
Would also agree with @SEEDGov’s points on retro funding, and likewise be interested to hear more on how you see the relationship between the Foundation and the DAO going forward.
One last point, to strengthen the flywheel and token utility, maybe it could be worth exploring a liquid staking vault?
Excited about the direction ParaSwap is heading with Project Miró and look forward to seeing how these ideas take shape!
/Erik