PEP-45: Get a GRIP: Group to Review and Improve Proposals

# Attributes

  • Author: @zaatar (with lots of amazing ideas from the community)

  • Recipient(s): GRIP team (see “Contributors” below)

  • Category: Allocation of DAO Treasury

  • Asking Amount: $5,000 a month (see “Budget” below) (revised November 14, 2022)

  • Acknowledgements: All GRIP team members, @jinx, @PoktBlade, and others for feedback, dissenting views, etc.

NOTE: Since the posting of PEP-45 and due to community input, the details on budget and contributors have been revised. All revisions have been flagged so readers can identify them.

# Summary

TL;DR: PEP-45 proposes creation of a team (GRIP) to help contributors develop proposals. The team will comprise specialists (technical and economic), an editor and a graphic artist.

Once a proposal has received community feedback in the soon-to-be-created Pre-Proposal Forum category, if needed, the specialists would do a final review.

If needed, the editor will work with the specialists to create a lay-friendly version. The graphic artist will add infographics as required. Just before a proposal launches, the editor will fix typos, spelling and grammar. At the same time, and if the proposer requests, the editor can provide writing assistance.

This proposal is for implementation on a three-month trial basis. After that, the team would report on its contribution and the community would gauge its value. A follow-up proposal, tweaked to reflect lessons learned and community input, would then be floated for open-ended adoption of GRIP. GRIP would continue to operate pending the follow-up vote.

# Motivation/Rationale

TL;DR: By leveraging community expertise and making proposal preparation easier this proposal will invigorate the proposal process, widen community participation, enhance debate and improve governance.

By offering help with writing and organizing ideas, the group will make submitting proposals easier for everyone. Some contributors are intimidated by the proposal process - GRIP will make it friendly. GRIP’s services could encourage submissions from non-native English speakers who hesitate due to language difficulty.

Contributors who invest resources to prepare proposals want to convey professionalism and maximize the likelihood of adoption. GRIP will help by making proposals as flawless and understandable as possible.

Proposals that deal with technical and economic matters may be hard for community members to follow and lead to voter tune-out. Making these proposals digestible will broaden community participation in governance.

Complex technical and economic proposals may be flawed due to errors and lack of research. While most errors may be detected through pre-proposal community evaluation, GRIP, where appropriate, will do a final vetting. It’s better to catch failings and have would-be contributors address them before putting proposals up for time-consuming debate and voting.

Proposals can contain typos and spelling and grammar mistakes that are distracting. Or they may be poorly written. Bad writing and errors can reduce clarity and obscure meaning. Providing writing assistance where needed and fixing errors will produce clearer proposals and better debate and governance.

# How Will It Work

Pre-posting review: Proposers will be encouraged to submit an outline or draft of their proposal in the Pre-Proposal category of the Forum for review and feedback by the community.

The Pre-Proposal category is a new public category in the Forum where ideas and rough-draft proposals can be published for consideration, review, and editing before they’re published to a formal Proposals category. It will be open to anyone to participate. The Pre-Proposal category is the brainchild of the core governance team.

To be clear: Use of the Pre-Proposal category will be optional; contributors can post a proposal directly to a proposal category. However, for all but the simplest proposals this is not recommended since Pre-Proposal scrutiny will produce better proposals.


The economics specialists will help with proposals requiring economic analysis including inflation controls, stake minimums, stake weighting, and validation of pool targets.

The technical specialists will help with proposals related to Pocket Network technology, including protocol upgrades, parameter adjustments, security enhancements, and community developed tooling.

The Process

Contributors will submit a proposal outline or draft in the Pre-Proposal category of the Forum for community feedback before devoting time and effort to drafting a formal proposal or technical scope document with a budget ask.

The technical specialists will consider any amounts being sought for reimbursement or advance funding and opine regarding the appropriate budget. They will consult the PNI Protocol and Engineering teams, as needed, to assess the impact of proposals on security, efficiency, and scalability.

We recognize that a small number of contributors may be uncomfortable going public with their ideas and writing, or publicly receiving criticism. To accommodate such contributors, and encourage their contributions too, GRIP, upon request, will privately review outlines, drafts and pre-proposals. Likewise, upon request, GRIP will confidentially relay its views to any contributor at any stage of the pre-proposal process. For transparency, GRIP will disclose its private contacts after the fact.

Some proposals may be so simple that posting in the Pre-Proposal category for feedback seems unnecessary. Proposers of such proposals are encouraged to submit them to GRIP for copy editing before launch.

For proposals that bypass the Pre-Proposal category and post unedited as a votable proposal, infographics could be added but no editing will be provided.

Making Proposals More Effective

After community feedback in the Pre-Proposal category has been taken into account, GRIP would perform adjustments for clarity, add detail where necessary, and make proposals digestible for a general audience.

Language errors: Once the specialists have added their final touches and a proposal is ready for posting, the editor, unless otherwise requested by the proposer, will fix typos and grammar and spelling mistakes. The editor might also make suggestions on content and structure (e.g., make unnecessarily long proposals more concise, have the contributor address unanswered but obvious questions).

The proposer can discuss proposed changes with the editor and accept or reject them. Apart from grammar and spelling, the proposer has the final say on how the proposal reads.

It’s recommended that all editing occur pre-launch since once a proposal goes live (prior to voting) community members form their views and provide their feedback based on the proposal as published. If proposals change after publication it can create confusion. It forces members to constantly return to the proposal and follow updates for feedback purposes and to do so again before voting in order to check if what they’re voting on is still the same proposal.

While PEP-45 does not eliminate editing post-launch, it’s worth noting that restricting editing to the pre-proposal stage will improve debate over proposals and simplify voting.

Infographics: GRIP will determine whether to create visual aids before a proposal floats, or afterward, or may do so upon community request.

Summaries: For complex proposals that have been formally launched, after most opinions appear to have been expressed, GRIP will draft a summary of the competing viewpoints in consultation with their proponents. This will help the community better appreciate the different sides. Infographics may be useful here as they can contrast the opposing views. (Infographics assisted during the debate on PIP-22 regarding stake-weighted servicer rewards.)

NOTE: A contributor is free to do work or complete a project before posting a reimbursement request in the Forum.

# Budget

(New & Revised on November 13-14, 2022)

The DAO will grant $5,000 to GRIP at the end of each month to disburse to its members as it sees fit. If over the three-month life of this project, the contributions come under $15,000, any unspent funds will be returned to the DAO or, if GRIP is renewed, roll over to the next funding period, reducing subsequent DAO grant(s) accordingly. Conversely, if appropriate compensation for the first three months of GRIP contributions goes over $15,000, a request for further funding can be submitted to the DAO.

Members will be compensated based on their contributions. These will mostly, if not all, be visible in the Forum so that it’s clear to the community what they’re getting paid for. Payment to each member will be made public with details on the work performed.

# Actionable Items

A vote for GRIP is a vote that the DAO and/or core governance do the following:

  1. Set up the Pre-Proposal category in the Forum within 24 hours from the end of voting, unless it’s already been created.

  2. Adjust editor permissions in the Pre-Proposal category to allow editing by GRIP and in the Pre-Proposal and Proposal categories to allow posting of summaries and infographics.

  3. At the end of each month, allocate $5,000 to GRIP for distribution among its members for work done. (Revised on November 13-14, 2022)

# Dissenting Opinions

Creating a review and editing group will foster a culture of dependency. It’s more beneficial to have a DAO culture where we all chip in and help each other. Extrinsic motivators are not the best incentive to create a healthy and sustainable community. Intrinsic motivators like reputation, praise and the feeling of being part of something much bigger than ourselves are proven to be much more valuable and long lasting.

  • Money may or may not be the best incentive long-term, but as a matter of fairness, if not necessity, people should be paid for their work.
  • Technical and economic analysis of proposals can demand considerable time and effort. Given the value and importance of analysis, we should pay specialists to do it – to ensure that it’s done and that it’s comprehensive and competent.

It’s dangerous for the DAO to start paying people for something they should care enough about to do anyway. And it may turn off other people from helping with pre-vetting proposals if they don’t get paid. It’s a slippery slope.

  • If people care about Pocket Network and have a stake in its future, they will continue to weigh in on how best to grow the project and spend the treasury’s funds.

All GRIP communications with contributors should be in the open. Behind-doors conversations are counter to the culture we are trying to nurture.

  • Connected community members invariably seek counsel privately from their colleagues. While not to be encouraged, providing an opportunity for private discussion for the timid and unconnected simply levels the playing field. In addition, a private communication could provide the nudge needed to prompt a contribution.

Proposers should be responsible for their own infographics. The DAO should not have to pay to prepare these.

  • Proposers are welcome to create their own infographics. However, for proposals that are not accompanied by infographics, GRIP should have discretion to add these for clarity. Ensuring that proposals are understood serves the interest of the entire community and will enhance decision-making and governance.

# Deliverables

Review, feedback, summaries, editing and infographics and all other assistance will be provided based on the unpredictable flow of pre-proposal material and proposals.

Proposal Preparation Guide: As soon as this proposal passes, GRIP will create an easy-to-follow, step-by-step guide on how to write up proposals. This will facilitate preparation especially for first-timers.

# Contributors

Any community member can apply to join GRIP. Once they have demonstrated sufficient skill, knowledge and/or expertise and existing members of the group vouch for them they will be added to the GRIP roster. If GRIP renews, acting GRIP roles will rotate among interested roster members every three months. (New – added on November 13, 2022)

Initially, the following individuals will make up the GRIP team.


Technical: @Steve | Dabble Lab (Steve Tingiris). Steve has worked as a software engineer for 25+ years. He heads Dabble Lab, a technology R&D firm, focused on blockchain, machine learning, and other emerging technologies. He has authored over 500 technical articles/tutorials including the official Zero-to-Node video tutorials and official node setup documentation. Involved with Pocket since before mainnet launch, he runs over 700 nodes.

Technical: @RawthiL (Ramiro Rodríguez Colmeiro) is part of POKTscan’s data science team, where he analyzes and models Pocket Network’s data. He has a Ph.D. in Complex Systems Optimization (University of Technology of Troyes, France) and Image and Signal Processing (Universidad Tecnológica Nacional, Argentina). He has created statistical models and machine learning algorithms for nuclear medicine applications and currently he is an assistant professor at the UTN-Facultad Regional Buenos Aires.

Technical: @bulutcambazi | C0D3R#5571 (Baris Saydag) is a founding member of C0D3R, one of the largest Pocket node-running services. Prior to COD3R, he worked for 15 years doing/managing systems security at Microsoft (Windows) and Facebook (Metaverse). He values innovation, agility and solid foundations.

Technical: @qspider (Geoffrey Diaz) has run a “friendly neighborhood” company providing web-hosting services and server infrastructure since 2013. After graduating from Tampa Technical Institute in 2001 with an A.S. in Computer Science, he did “just about every job in IT you can think of,” from support to creating websites in CSS/HTML, WordPress and other CMSs, while also working towards a college degree in computer engineering. He is proficient in some Linux distros, mainly Red Hat and Debian/Ubuntu. His background in infrastructure and database management made it easy to move more towards blockchain technology in the last few years.

Technical/Economics: @shane (Shane Burgett) With a background in business development, marketing, design, and media production, he has been a full-time business development contributor to Pocket Network since January 2019. He is the founder of Orlando-based Decentralized Authority which builds products and services that enable anyone to deploy and manage blockchain nodes and validators. He is the co-creator of Node Pilot, Node Launcher and Pokt Lint.

Economics: @Tracie | (Tracie Myers) is a blockchain veteran and IT maven whose passion for numbers led to reverse engineering the Clash of Clans matchmaking algorithm, rocketing her team to the no. 2 spot on the multiplayer strategy game’s global leaderboard. She created the foundation for Pocket’s economic model, and co-authored the white paper. Most recently, she is the CEO and co-founder of poktpool, Inc., a fractional-staking platform with over 3,100 users and 120MM POKT under management.

Economics: @pikpokt (Adam Liposky) is a seasoned member of the Pocket community, serving in several core team roles, including COO. Having a background in venture capital, startups, and finance, Adam led the way on several key governance improvements over the last few years with a focus on economics and scalability. Having authored much of the latest economics documentation and models, Adam established himself as an economics thought leader. He currently serves as a Partner at NachoNodes and Head of Staking at DLTx.


@zaatar (Ron Jourard) is a criminal lawyer and former journalist. He has 10 years of newspaper copy-editing experience (Jerusalem Post, Canadian Press), and has over 25 years’ experience as a trial lawyer. Information organization and clear presentation are key in trial litigation. Get Staked Inc., a family-owned corporation, runs Pocket nodes.

Graphic artist:

Ale_dVG (Alejandra (Ale) del Valle) has a degree in Marketing & Graphic Design from Universidad Rafael Landivar in Guatemala. She worked as a graphic designer for Telus Corporation before switching in 2013 to helping start-ups develop corporate image and create presentations. She also holds an MA in Public Relations and Graphic Communication from the University of the Arts London. She does the art for the poktpool infographic series.

Cryptocorn (Alex Devoto) has built and run several tech start-ups and raised capital. His companies have sold product to Fortune 100 companies. Last year, one of his companies was awarded a U.S. patent. He heads marketing and community management at poktpool, Inc., and writes and helps design its infographic series.

Ale and Alex will collaborate.


Copyright and related rights waived via CC0.


As we grow and become a bigger organisation, the intimidation factor to writing one’s first proposal will only be amplified.

As someone who wrote a proposal and submitted to the DAO, I was lucky enough to have one of the 'OG’s in the space review my proposal before submission (I later collaborated with several of the respected ‘gigabrains’ to write our final proposal that was put to a DAO vote).

I think having a committee of veterans who can help guide proposals and present them in a more professional way will benefit the community as a whole and make submitting a proposal more democratic and accessible for all our members.

Additionally, better written, more concise and easier to read/understand proposals will benefit the DAO such that more voters will take the time to read and understand proposals submitted. Therefore I support this proposal.


Agreed with @Cryptocorn thoughts in general.

One other thing that I’d like to mention is the team’s current composition. It’s a diverse group of community members with varying perspectives. If you take a look at the GRIP member’s previous conversations in past proposals, many have leaned towards the opposite ends of supporting / not supporting one. It goes without saying, it’s good to have feedback from both ends so that oversights are caught earlier on and ultimately a stronger proposal can be submitted to the DAO.


I support this proposal without reservations.


I think this proposal addresses a real need that the DAO has, so kudos on a great initiative! However, I caveat this with the following comments:

  • We should tend away from building processes that create backchannels. Rather than “consulting PNI Protocol and Engineering teams”, which suggests that GRIP would play the middleman, PNI Protocol and Engineering teams should be looped in directly to a proposal where possible. Also, while I recognize that some contributors may be nervous about public critique of their ideas, I think it would be healthy for our community to learn to develop a culture of constructive feedback, without the need for more backchannels. By creating backchannels, we exclude valuable contributions/insights and allow human biases to more easily creep in.
  • Contribution opportunities like this (the opportunity to participate in the pre-proposal category and get paid for it) should be made available to everyone (not just a privileged group). To do otherwise would be a disservice to ourselves because we would be losing out on valuable contributions and insights. This proposal should not preclude others from being paid for exactly the same work.

I really like this proposal… it identifies a need, proposes a good solution, has assembled a great team, and can benefit all participants in the network - proposers, voters, debaters and lurkers.

My feedback relates to implementation:

  • I agree with @JackALaing that we should be inclusive to anyone who can complement this team with additional talent and insight. I support a lite permission mechanism where anyone can opt-in to participate

  • I strongly believe experimentation and “intelligent failure” are key to success in web3 and support a 3 month trial. But learning is maximised by having some pre-defined ideas/hypothesis about success, along with rigorous measurement and regular feedback. I think a clearer definition of success is needed including how this would be measured (imo qualitative measures are completely fine but the mechanism should be expressed in advance). I also hope the team can report monthly on outcomes, learning and rewards which would increase feedback, transparency and iteration cycle velocity

  • Backchannels: Further to the points above re backchannels, as much work as possible should be in the open and through the forum or some open space (we can help create an open Notion workspace for this team to collaborate in). I think fees paid for any type of “private consulting” is not a good precedent as the work is not really verifiable.

  • Fees per hour, after the fact, up to a cap: I think this is also a bad precedent. While I think these contributors have unimpeachable integrity it would be better to set parameters for the experiment that are not based on hours, even if this requires us to be more generous or expect a lower ROI in the first month/s. This is another element to the trial/experiment. One mechanism could be to fund $X,000 of USD or POKT into a Coordinape circle which the team can allocate bottom up as they see appropriate. Against this, the community can review each month if the output matches the total fund and the team can request more funds if needed. I am more than happy to establish and help operate this mechanism if desired

Thanks for this proposal - I really hope it gets passed (with these small adjustments to implementation)

1 Like

I see two different comments about backchannels which seem to ignore the fact that backchannels are commonly used in proposals to vet ideas and gain input before presenting to the community at large. I have been invited to vet a dozen previous proposals, and requested the same on a couple of mine.

Allowing a group to help gather some initial backchannel vetting puts new proposers on an equal footing with existing community members who already have that privilege.

1 Like

Hey @zaatar - it’s fantastic to see the brilliant group you’ve brought around this idea. So well done.

The motives and intended result of improving governance proposals and increasing their chances of success - for both the proposer and the ecosystem as a whole - is a worthy aim.

My two questions relate solely to the implementation, namely:

1 .Compensation

I fully agree with this point and would also be comfortable with a higher $ cap per month, eg $5k(?) for the group. Using a tool like Coordinape (full disclosure: I am a very small investor by way of my past role as a partner at the VC, Eden Block) would enable group ownership over their budget and a mechanism which allowed that group to distribute it amongst themselves according to how they viewed each other’s impact and value. It should also encourage more transparency and broader accountability as all group members will be encouraged to share their work to increase the legitimacy of the group’s work and awareness of their contribution to its goals.

2.Membership and broader community input

It would be good to understand how it is open to others to participate and join the group as an expert. Suppose the group used a coordinape circle, for example. In that case, new members could join once they demonstrate they have sufficient skill/knowledge of the overall processes to justify their inclusion (eg via the vouching of one or two of the existing members of the group) and only get paid if they delivered enough value, as determined by the group itself.

My concerns about the private nature of this group mainly relate to the concern that new community members may view this group as the only relevant people to seek counsel from when many others could help. So this shouldn’t be the only channel used to bolster support for a proposal or to seek feedback. The more that others can help each other in this community, the better IMO.

Can general community members comment on pre-proposals? We don’t want to exclude potentially valuable input pre-proposal from other interested members. Further, encouraging a culture of collaboration and participation is extremely valuable IMO, and others may realise that supporting pre-proposals without any pay may become a viable pathway to joining an existing coordinape circle, or simply building up a better reputation in the community more generally

@jinx You’re a brilliant all-round guy (no need to be coy about this!) who comes across as very approachable. And with your significant presence on all pocket channels, it’s natural that you are the first port of call for many who seek input into their proposals.

My real question is how to enable others in the community to build up a reputation for being helpful. And to remove the friction between community members - new and old - to connect when they need help of any kind. In other words, how do we arm new community members with the best info about who can be/wants to be helpful in the community and concerning what domains?

My natural bias is towards open collaboration and participation, so I assume that fewer back channels would lead to a more incredible culture of collaboration and participation. I’d love to hear the thoughts from you - and any one else from the group - on this.

An additional point re backchannels, people typically learn a company’s culture through osmosis in a traditional office-based working environment. However, we don’t have such an option in a digital-first community like this. Consequently, best practices around accountability, communication, transparency, and standards often need to be better shared and understood in a DAO. As this group is a high-quality group of contributors, the wider community can benefit from looking at how you all work together. As it will show many others how they can also lead by example.

Good examples of this group working together should also make it easier to launch some of the guilds that I know @JackALaing and other members of his team are seeking to launch in the coming weeks and months.



I think we already have a number of other folks in the community who serve this role, and a number of the folks outlined in the proposal are representative of that. The biggest thing I see as an issue currently is that there is less access to those other people that those of us more established here already have. We DM on Discord or Telegram, or reach out to third party connections.

The GRIP group expands what already happens currently to more people, but others in the community still have the same opportunity to build reputation the same way everyone else here has; by participating in the conversations, and making helpful contributions along the way. Constructive comments on proposals, engaging on Discord and Telegram, even DMing a proposal author are all still on the table. Nothing about this pre-prod group changes the mechanism by which all of us built the reputation we have.

Again, I agree with this in theory, and as a culture goal. But backchanneling is always going to exist. Why not support a mechanism that gives wider access to it?

This is an important point, and the public “pre-proposal” category serves to assist in that goal:

And the amount of actual private conversation should be limited, by design:

So, it’s not really about the gathering of relevant technical or economic input we see along the way that is the main concern, in my opinion. More important to your perspective is this:

…and I completely get the concern from this perspective. @JackALaing has made clear he doesn’t want to see groups with “special powers” so to speak achieving the opposite of the goal of this proposal: to make the proposal process easier and more accessible.

We all share that goal.

GRIP is not exclusive or preclusive to other groups/teams/guilds forming for the same purpose. But it IS a dedicated group of knowledgeable people in the ecosystem whose purpose is to be there for new proposers in a way that no one really is now. It seems counterproductive to oppose someone doing something no one else is doing now for fear that the someone will become known for doing the thing, and increasing their community clout because of it.

Yes. That’s spelled out in the quotes above.

Agreed completely.

Pre-proposals are not to be supported or opposed. They’re to be fleshed out, polished, refined, and revised, and solely at the request of the proposer. The group is not for lobbying. It’s for information gathering, editing, graphics creation, spotting technical difficulties which may need to be addressed, or unexpected economic impacts.

My turn to compliment:

You are a thoughtful participant in the community, hold a high responsibility as part of the foundation, and on every significant proposal since I became a DAO member, I have seen you make articulate and deeply considered contributions in the comments. This proposal is no different. Perhaps GRIP needs an additional member from the start to represent a Foundation view.


Thank you Jack, Ben, and Dermot for your comments. Based on your feedback, and input from the GRIP team, two aspects of PEP-45 have been revised as follows:
• a monthly budget of $5,000 will be sought from the DAO, and
• anyone deemed qualified will be able to join GRIP

I discuss these revisions in detail below. Following that I respond to your comments on back channels and pre-proposal feedback from non-GRIP members.

Please keep in mind that PEP-45 is for a three-month trial period. If we don’t get it absolutely right out of the gate, we can make changes in the follow-up proposal for renewal of GRIP.


As we chart new territory, finding the best funding mechanism is a challenge. I accept the above suggestion that a fixed amount be granted monthly to GRIP. A $5,000 cap, as Dermot proposes, is reasonable.

At the end of each month, GRIP will disburse the budget as it deems appropriate. It will report on the amount paid to each member with details on the work performed. This will enable the community to assess whether it got its money’s worth. If over the three-month life of this project, appropriate compensation for GRIP contributions is over $15,000, a request for further funding can be submitted to the DAO, which accords with Ben’s suggestion that “the team can request more funds if needed.”

Conversely, if the contributions come under $15,000, the surplus will be returned to the DAO or, if GRIP renews, roll over to the next funding period, reducing the subsequent DAO grant(s) accordingly.

As noted, GRIP will determine how it distributes payment. I prefer paying people for their time and at the same rate. Most work will be in the open, so folks can see the GRIP members’ individual contributions and what they’re getting paid for. While there’s a trust component as regards behind-the-scenes work and in respect to how much time goes into work that’s visible, paying people for their time is fairest. Allocating payment based on “how we view each other’s input and value” is too subjective. If you’re on GRIP, your contribution is treated as equal.

Coordinape is not needed; it adds unnecessary complication.

How to Join GRIP

I agree with Dermot that new members should be eligible to join once they demonstrate they have sufficient skill/knowledge/expertise and existing members of the group vouch for them. (Again, however, Coordinape is unnecessary.) A pool or roster of folks available to serve on GRIP could thus be created.

To avoid GRIP-team bloat, the number of acting team members could be limited to, or near, its current size. To ensure that it’s not a “privileged” group, active membership/participation could be rotated every three months among all interested members on the roster.

This also would make paid contribution opportunities at the pre-proposal stage available to everyone who’s qualified - albeit on a rotating basis, thereby addressing one of Jack’s concerns.

Feedback on Pre-proposals From Outside GRIP Team

Jack notes that not paying everyone for their pre-proposal contributions “would be a disservice to ourselves because we would be losing out on valuable contributions and insights.” He echoes concerns raised by Dermot:

In the main, the channel for feedback on pre-proposals will be the Pre-Proposal category in the Forum. Anyone can participate and add their input. Some community members might do so to build a reputation and establish their credentials, perhaps in order to join GRIP. If a GRIP roster is created with active paid roles rotated quarterly, the community will know that the pool of “relevant people to seek counsel from” includes inactive roster members – not just the acting GRIP team. Finally, as I note in this proposal: “If people care about Pocket Network and have a stake in its future, they will continue to weigh in on how best to grow the project and spend the treasury’s funds.”

Back Channels

Jinx has addressed this concern at length. I will add but a few comments.

Back Door to PNI

I agree. However, in the event that GRIP needs to consult the PNI Protocol and Engineering teams, it will try and do so openly in the Pre-Proposal category.

Culture of Constructive Feedback

While PEP-45 does allow for private contact between GRIP and would-be contributors – it does not encourage it. Justifications for a private-contact option are that it will hearten those who might need a nudge and those who might otherwise refrain from contributing. GRIP will encourage contributors who seek private advice to transition as soon as possible to open dialogue in the Pre-Proposal category.

Setting an Example

It’s anticipated that most or nearly all of GRIP’s work will be visible in the Forum Pre-Proposal and proposal categories where the community will be able to witness how the team “works together.”


Ale_dVG and Cryptocorn will collaborate on infographics.

Here’s a teaser:


This proposal is now up for voting Snapshot

I’m late to the party but enjoyed catching up on the discussions here and appreciate this timely, strong and thoughtful initiative from @zaatar and the GRIP team.

1 Like

This proposal passed with 15 approvals and 0 rejections. Snapshot

The pre-proposal category has been created here Pre-Proposals - Pocket Network Forum

The GRIP group has been created here Group to review and improve proposals (grip) - Pocket Network Forum

@zaatar is the owner of the group. Anyone can apply to join the group by clicking the Request button.

GRIP group members should now have limited moderator powers inside the governance category but I’m not 100% certain as this is my first time testing the feature to assign moderator powers to a group. Zaatar will test and report back, then we’ll adjust as necessary.