Grant Proposal: Are You Advocate Ready? (Re-submission)

Community Grant Applications
#10

Hi Kyle,

Thanks for the great questions. I will go into detail on what I have in mind.

I initially thought of having POAPs for easy, medium and hard difficulty however what you see on the final exam now isn’t what it will be in the end product.

The questions will be randomly selected from the easy, medium and hard categories for the chosen topic. Probably at a ratio of 50% easy, 30% medium and 20% hard. And the user will receive a QR code or link to redeem the POAP for that topic if the successfully score 80% or above on the exam. Which will trigger the certificate to be displayed. I am still writing the logic to select these at random from the question bank to make the final exam. So it will be more advanced from what the showcase currently is, which is selecting the difficulty manually. However, the practice quiz will stay the same. As that’s to aid the learning.

But, if the community / Advocates DAO feel like maybe these in Bronze, Silver and Gold for each difficulty might be best? We could have that discussion.

I could add an additional section for what the DAO is looking for in an Advocate. Aside from the roles. That information would be invaluable to a community member wanting to become an Advocate. To help align the toll with the DAO’s objectives.

Kind Regards,

Liam

1 Like
#11

Thank you for the response! I’ve been meaning to ask about the difference between this and the previous “Are you Advocate ready” feature proposal submitted a couple of months ago. It would be great if you could summarize what is different this time. I understand the general purpose of the feature :slight_smile:

#12

Hi Julianna,

Thanks for the question. I have not really shared this side of the story with anyone but.

As I have written the proposal is very similar but with a working showcase and additional content.

In my proposal I also wrote that the previous proposal passed the community vote, the advocate vote however for some reason when it came to the on-chain vote it just missed out.

It was never made clear to me why when it was clear that the tool was wanted and from the feedback I still get from the community, is still very much wanted. So I re-applied hoping there to be a different result so the community members who have sang its praise and potential new advocates / community members will benefit from this. I accepted the initial grant and it all got turned off when on the final days on the on-chain vote 4 an anonymous votes no meant that it didn’t pass. I couldn’t find them participating within The Graph ecosystem (curator, indexer or delegator) so I’m really not sure what happened. I hope for more transparency this time, and for the DAO to take more consideration into the community votes and opinions if possible.

Kind Regards,

Liam

#13

@Colson I would love to hear at to why you have voted against this proposal again? Is it the same as before?

“In my opinion it should be about funding projects that directly add value to our community, in the most efficient and impactful way possible. To my knowledge you are not an expert in development, nor an expert in education. Therefore, it does not seem efficient to me to fund this grant proposal.”

Probably one of the worst comments I have heard within the ecosystem to be said about anyone for any grant. I would hope you have read back through the AdvocateDAO documentation and re-aligned yourself with the community and what the grants are for since this comment.

1 Like
#14

Great idea, and this will increase awareness in all communities and encourage more people to contribute to TheGraph.

I hope people will use it to become advocates

1 Like
#15

I think it’s a good idea.
What made me decide on a long-term involvement with The Graph was a major test event that included resarch papers about The Graph aimed at contributors before the token launch. I still remember feeling that a project with such a token distribution process was revolutionary and capable of creating a sincere and truly sustainable community.

Also, last month’s The Graph Birthday in Tokyo, which I hosted, was a big success when we incorporated quiz-style educational content into the event. https://x.com/graphprotocolJP/status/1737239016779702361?s=20

Everyone in this field is hungry for interest and knowledge, and education is the most effective way to improve the overall quality. In an environment where other projects are using meaningless tools like zealy for pointless evaluations, I think it’s a great idea that sets us apart.

Additionally, I have a suggestion. Currently, for basic education about The Graph at events around the world, I believe everyone is using their own slides. Wouldn’t it be better to have the same official slides to explain in accordance with a basic script for standardizing/normalizing education in each region globally? This kind of manualization will lead to efficiency, ensuring a certain level of education regardless of who is in charge.

Let’s improve various aspects focusing on education.:handshake:

1 Like
#16

Thanks so much @GRTDataHub and welcome back. I also saw an early preview of your work and I must say the tool can be really useful to make sure potential Advocates are ready to join the program.

2 Likes
#17

Greetings!

The presentation of the project will be in the public-voice-chat channel on the Graph AdvocatesDAO Discord server on January 16th at 10:00 UTC. Entrance is open and everyone is welcome to come in and ask their questions during the presentation!

Thanks everyone for your attention!

1 Like
#18

Hey @GRTDataHub ,

I have removed my vote from the “Grant Committee Vote” as I am no longer part of the grant committee, but I will give my opinion as a community member.

TLDR: In my opinion, this is a poorly written proposal for an overpriced, sub-optimal solution to a non-existent problem. I fundamentally do not support this grant application.

Elaboration: In my opinion, the grant is written in a poorly structured manner; it contains many spelling mistakes and repetitions. There was no need for the grant to be thousands of words long. The KPIs are not measurable, and the answer to the budget breakdown is not detailed enough.

The answer to the question “Describe what your project does or is aiming to do in 50 characters or less” exceeds 300 characters.

I’ve been trying my best to provide constructive criticism on your past grant proposals. I find the mischaracterization of my feedback in this new proposal interesting. Anyone is free to find full context here. Moreover, telling me to read back our own documentation and realign myself with the community has made you lose all credibility in my eyes. I am part of this community, so my vote should count as much as everyone else’s, don’t you agree?

Personally, I have spoken with thousands of people in this ecosystem and have 7 years of professional experience in education. I have rarely, if ever, heard anyone be “on the fence” about applying to become a Graph advocate. We onboard about 10 Graph advocates a month. As you can imagine, the number of advocate applications is a bit higher than that, but not astronomical. If any of these people are on the fence about this application, an educational quiz might be helpful as an addition to the documentation and the ongoing support in our Discord server. Such a quiz could easily be created using ChatGPT to generate questions and answers, then posting them in Kahoot or a similar platform, with educational slides before them. I have yet to see a legitimate reason why a separate self-coded tool is necessary when there are numerous perfectly functioning educational tools available. If you really want to build a new tool for this and want to practice your coding, it could be a fun hobby project. I do not see why Graph AdvocatesDAO would approve $3000 grant for a glorified quiz.

I want to make it clear that I am all for educating community members; however, I disagree with the method of education proposed here.

If this proposal passes, I hope to be proven wrong in my judgment, and I wish you the best of luck in executing your proposal.

1 Like
#19

Hi Colson,

Thank you for taking the time to reply to show why you voted against the proposal. Having read your comments and in the way you have written it, with malicious intent or not; it seems a bit aggressive.

You are entitled to your opinion like everyone else, this is correct.

I can struggle with reading and writing at time, hence why my content is often badly worded with sentences badly structured and spelling mistakes. I’m not sure how that has any relevance whatsoever to this community educational tooling that is being applied for. But thanks for highlighting that flaw. I know this myself and that is why I made a showcase as I can be bad at explaining the ideas.

Sorry if you feel you have been mischaracterised, I just copy and pasted your comment from previously as I would have loved more feedback.

Every single community member bar yourself has had only good and positive things to say about this proposed feature. I’m not sure why you are so against it, but you are 100% entitled to your own opinion. In fact, there are a lot of people who are “on the fence”, meaning they are not sure. I have had even more contact me since posting to Twitter about this proposed feature.

Just a few examples from recently.

IMG_0145
IMG_0145986×376 80.8 KB

IMG_0143
IMG_01431170×562 148 KB

IMG_0142
IMG_01421170×835 95.3 KB

IMG_0144
IMG_01441170×370 118 KB

I am not sure why you are so against this and my previous grants but thank you for your open and honest opinion! I respect you for that.

Have a great day.

Kind Regards,

Liam

#20

Great idea, great for the community and one step closer to be a part of TheGraph ecosystem.

This can be used by builders to be advocates

1 Like
#21

Hello Liam
Could you explain how this proposal improve The Graph ecosystem?

#22

Hi Lorena,

It will improve the graph ecosystem by having a higher calibre of Graph advocates. New advocates joining and improving the ecosystem and community,

Both of my grant proposals have been fully backed by the community but not by the current advocates for some reason.

I still don’t understand why but I am losing interest at this point which is really sad for me to say.

I feel as though the advocates don’t feel this tool will benefit the community (the ones who all fully support it).

So I don’t really know what more I can do at this point in time. I feel like my efforts are wasted right now.

Kind Regards,

Liam

#23

The majority decision of the Grant Committee concludes to not recommend this proposal for DAO funding. Please recognize that this is not a statement on the proposal itself, but rather an aggregated reflection by committee members taking into account a number of factors, such as alignment to The Graph and web3 ecosystem, budget available to support grants and prioritization relative to other proposed grants. A detailed feedback about the proposal will follow.

Thank you for submitting this proposal, and you are encouraged to stay engaged in the Graph community. You are also welcome to submit new grant applications in the future with proposals that may generate stronger support from the committee.

Sincerely,
Graph AdvocatesDAO

#24

How has the Advocate voting been closed when ONLY 5 Advocates have voted for this?!

It would make sense for all current advocates to vote as that’s in their power. Then close the voting. Not just close it because it’s 60% No and 40% Yes.

Wouldn’t they be a fair challenge?

I would also like an in depth explanation as to why all the community votes from both the grants have not been taken into consideration, nor have the comments within the community regarding the tooling.

If you feel it’s price of the grant that is too high for the hours upon hours of workload carried out. Then please respond with a figure as no contracts have been spoke of yet so there is always time to change the figure to get the tool into the community? Surely that’s the way forward when dealing with grants like this.

#25

The second vote is for grant committee members only, for advocates and other community members we have the community poll.

#26

The grant committee has thoroughly reviewed the recent grant proposal and the ongoing development of the chatbot project, and we appreciate the dedication invested in both endeavours. However, due to the recent rejection of your grant proposal, the committee feels compelled to offer some constructive feedback and suggestions for improvement.

With the rise of AI, the rule-based responses of chatbots like GRTdatahub severely limit flexibility in understanding complex user queries or providing personalized responses. They rely solely on the rules and data provided during their development and have a narrow scope.

The need for rebuilding the chatbot and adding AI-based functionalities has been raised before but unfortunately ignored.

The chatbot’s outdated architecture appears to be overly complex - using the translation of the chatbot as an example, the separate files for each language lead to duplication of effort. Consolidating these files and implementing a more modular approach could simplify maintenance and updates in the future.

Developing and adding another feature to the architecture described above seems to be inefficient. Furthermore, the DAO considers the feedback from the community, and it has not been indicated by community members, either online or offline, that a functionality like the one proposed by you would be needed. Thus, the DAO questions the necessity of developing a separate tool when existing educational platforms could serve the same purpose more efficiently and immediately after such a need arises. Utilizing platforms like Kahoot and Quizlet could streamline the process and potentially save valuable resources. Additionally, the DAO has launched the Mentorship and Membership team, which tackles issues like this by providing personalized 1:1 mentoring not only with DAO members but also with advocates willing to share their experiences and help others start/continue their journey as advocates.

The grant committee is also concerned to learn that you’ve been reaching out to community members asking for support for your grant proposal, which is generally not forbidden, but can make some people feel uncomfortable. We would also like to point out that the proposal as well as the answers to the community should be more concise. You should avoid becoming defensive or confrontational in your responses to unsupportive feedback.

In conclusion, while the community and the grant committee support the goals of both the grant proposal and the chatbot, there is room for improvement in various areas. By addressing these concerns and implementing the suggested enhancements, we are happy to endorse your proposal to the DAO in the future.

#27
#28
#29

I am not going to comment on the chatbot as that is a completely separate grant that has been satisfied with all its deliverables. Your narrative to make it AI just keeps coming back. Sometimes I consider but don’t yet have the skills to apply this. But thankyou, once again for highlighting to the community that it is poorly coded and not built the best. Also, sometimes that has been discussed many times. I had to fight to hard to get each and every one approved. I don’t have the energy anymore.

Once again, why would we utilise and pay for quiz features when we are pushing Open-Source? As I have said numerous times previously, this IS open-source and will be forever. To anyone can use the features and adapt them to their needs. I am now regretting having my repo as open-source as all you have done is belittle me with my coding practices.

I am assuming this 1:1 mentoring scheme will benefit members by counting towards their hours? 1:1 mentoring already goes on within all community by advocates and members. Ones who don’t claim time for this.

“The grant committee is also concerned to learn that you’ve been reaching out to community members asking for support for your grant proposal, which is generally not forbidden, but can make some people feel uncomfortable.”

This need to be reviewed as I have NOT ONCE reached out to community members asking for support. I have always said I want open and honest opinions. I HAVE however, done the following in accordance with the DAO documentation. “The grantee is allowed to promote the proposal in different social media platforms (i.e. Discord) and other Communities, however, of course, it is not allowed to directly influence other person’s opinion or vote.”

So I would like that reviewing immediately and removed from the forum.

However, I do agree that I have become confrontational and defensive due to wanting change and the community to be listened to.

I respect that and I know I have lost this grant.