We do offer this, there are clear deadlines on each milestone, we notify grantees multiple times as their milestones are coming due, we display when they are past due and this is all public.

Glad you are open to it, I will reply to your DM!

Hey, Paulo alerted me about this thread, so jumping in.

Karma GAP is built to solve this exact problem and we were funded by Arbitrum through Plurality Labs. We have many communities using GAP, so the application is working well and thriving.

When we got funded, Feems was super helpful and helped load all the grants across various programs, you can see them all here: https://gap.karmahq.xyz/arbitrum. Many grantees have continued to use it to share milestones and updates.

So, it's not a tech issue anymore, it's a process issue. I have messaged and talked to almost all providers who run grant programs for Arbitrum. Some providers have their own internal systems for tracking it and may be they don't have a reason to use GAP. Grantees will do what the program operators tell them.

We have continued to add more features, impact measurement and many more things to GAP and would really want to make it work for Arbitrum if I can get some help on process or atleast someone to talk to!

I'm happy to find a way to work with you as well @EmmanuelO if you are open to it.

We do offer this, there are clear deadlines on each milestone, we notify grantees multiple times as their milestones are coming due, we display when they are past due and this is all public.

Glad you are open to it, I will reply to your DM!

Hey, Paulo alerted me about this thread, so jumping in.

Karma GAP is built to solve this exact problem and we were funded by Arbitrum through Plurality Labs. We have many communities using GAP, so the application is working well and thriving.

When we got funded, Feems was super helpful and helped load all the grants across various programs, you can see them all here: https://gap.karmahq.xyz/arbitrum. Many grantees have continued to use it to share milestones and updates.

So, it's not a tech issue anymore, it's a process issue. I have messaged and talked to almost all providers who run grant programs for Arbitrum. Some providers have their own internal systems for tracking it and may be they don't have a reason to use GAP. Grantees will do what the program operators tell them.

We have continued to add more features, impact measurement and many more things to GAP and would really want to make it work for Arbitrum if I can get some help on process or atleast someone to talk to!

I'm happy to find a way to work with you as well @EmmanuelO if you are open to it.

Thank you for sharing your input—I genuinely appreciate your perspective. That said, I wanted to clarify that, so far, the majority of feedback has been supportive, and many people recognize the need for this initiative. I feel strongly that this proposal addresses a critical gap within the DAO.

I’m an active participant in DAOs and have been deeply involved in discussions and collaborations within this space. My professional experience and understanding of decentralized systems are well-documented, including on platforms like LinkedIn. To be candid, I do feel that implying otherwise might overlook the context and research I’ve already contributed.

If there is a conflict of intrest for you with KarmaGAP, I have stated my intention is not to discard what has been done.

Nonetheless, I respect your concerns and welcome the opportunity to engage in further dialogue. If there are specific areas you think could strengthen the proposal, I’d be glad to hear your thoughts.

...and I want to clarify that my proposal is specifically designed to address the platform usage challenges, which others have also recognized as an issue. My experience in the DAO space is well-documented, and I came into this proposal leveraging my resume and extensive work in decentralized ecosystems over the past seven years.

It’s entirely normal for proposals to evolve based on feedback, and I welcome constructive suggestions. However, I found the suggestion that I need a mentor for an industry where I have been an active participant and leader to be unexpected. I’m curious if this was meant to encourage collaboration or reflect a concern about a specific aspect of my proposal.

Could you please clarify your intentions here? I want to ensure we’re aligned and working towards the best outcomes for the DAO.

Hi, thanks for your response! I had already posted the proposal here and on a couple of other forums to gather feedback. My goal is to continue refining the proposal based on community input, as this is a tool built for the DAO, and it wouldn’t make sense to develop it without the DAO's involvement.

Since then, the proposal has evolved. From the previous discussions, it’s clear the community wants a more robust platform, so there is going to be a budget change/increase.

Another significant change has been the inclusion of mandatory reporting. While I will be going through Questbook for funding, I believe a DAO-level mandate might be necessary to ensure all grant recipients provide the regular updates necessary to the platform. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

The data around milestones will be collected through a combination of automated and manual processes to ensure accuracy, reliability, and efficiency.

1. Automated Collection: Wherever feasible, we will integrate tools and APIs to automate the tracking and reporting of key metrics from channels like Questbook, Forum e.t.c such as progress updates, milestone completion, and expenditure tracking. However, these can also be updated manually directly on the platform for those not using these channels. Automating some of it will reduce the administrative burden especially since we will be displaying existing projects too.
2. Manual Input by Grantees: For qualitative updates, such as challenges encountered or detailed explanations of progress, grantees will submit reports directly through a standardized reporting interface. This allows flexibility in addressing specific project nuances that cannot be captured through automation alone.

The updated proposal I’m working on will also detail the maintenance of the platform for 12 months, as requested by the community.

Thank you for sharing your input—I genuinely appreciate your perspective. That said, I wanted to clarify that, so far, the majority of feedback has been supportive, and many people recognize the need for this initiative. I feel strongly that this proposal addresses a critical gap within the DAO.

I’m an active participant in DAOs and have been deeply involved in discussions and collaborations within this space. My professional experience and understanding of decentralized systems are well-documented, including on platforms like LinkedIn. To be candid, I do feel that implying otherwise might overlook the context and research I’ve already contributed.

If there is a conflict of intrest for you with KarmaGAP, I have stated my intention is not to discard what has been done.

Nonetheless, I respect your concerns and welcome the opportunity to engage in further dialogue. If there are specific areas you think could strengthen the proposal, I’d be glad to hear your thoughts.

...and I want to clarify that my proposal is specifically designed to address the platform usage challenges, which others have also recognized as an issue. My experience in the DAO space is well-documented, and I came into this proposal leveraging my resume and extensive work in decentralized ecosystems over the past seven years.

It’s entirely normal for proposals to evolve based on feedback, and I welcome constructive suggestions. However, I found the suggestion that I need a mentor for an industry where I have been an active participant and leader to be unexpected. I’m curious if this was meant to encourage collaboration or reflect a concern about a specific aspect of my proposal.

Could you please clarify your intentions here? I want to ensure we’re aligned and working towards the best outcomes for the DAO.

Hi, thanks for your response! I had already posted the proposal here and on a couple of other forums to gather feedback. My goal is to continue refining the proposal based on community input, as this is a tool built for the DAO, and it wouldn’t make sense to develop it without the DAO's involvement.

Since then, the proposal has evolved. From the previous discussions, it’s clear the community wants a more robust platform, so there is going to be a budget change/increase.

Another significant change has been the inclusion of mandatory reporting. While I will be going through Questbook for funding, I believe a DAO-level mandate might be necessary to ensure all grant recipients provide the regular updates necessary to the platform. I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

The data around milestones will be collected through a combination of automated and manual processes to ensure accuracy, reliability, and efficiency.

1. Automated Collection: Wherever feasible, we will integrate tools and APIs to automate the tracking and reporting of key metrics from channels like Questbook, Forum e.t.c such as progress updates, milestone completion, and expenditure tracking. However, these can also be updated manually directly on the platform for those not using these channels. Automating some of it will reduce the administrative burden especially since we will be displaying existing projects too.
2. Manual Input by Grantees: For qualitative updates, such as challenges encountered or detailed explanations of progress, grantees will submit reports directly through a standardized reporting interface. This allows flexibility in addressing specific project nuances that cannot be captured through automation alone.

The updated proposal I’m working on will also detail the maintenance of the platform for 12 months, as requested by the community.

Hi, thank you for your thoughtful feedback! I appreciate your support and the insightful questions you’ve raised.

1. Interface References: For the interface, I envision a dashboard with clear project tracking and milestone progress indicators. It will be similar to tools like Monday.com in terms of layout and interactivity. I plan to share initial wireframes once the proposal is approved so I can gather early feedback from the community. Throughout the development process, we will allow everyone to review and provide feedback.
2. Data Ingestion: The platform will support both manual data input (from grant recipients and project leads) and automatic data ingestion through APIs (e.g., Questbook, Discord, etc.). This approach will allow for flexibility in how data is captured. For instance, grant recipients can manually update their progress, while other data points can be automatically pulled from external tools.
3. Manual Input Fields: Yes, the standard field would be:

• Project Name
• Milestone Description
• Spending for the milestone
• Team member/s
• Outcome Type (Whether it’s a technical, operational, financial, or community-based outcome)
• Milestone Impact (the immediate, short-term effect of the milestone)
• Overall Project Impact (the broader outcome of the entire project)
• KPI (specific measurable metrics or indicators tied to project objectives)
• Completion Percentage
• Deadline
• Status (On Track/Delayed/Completed)
• Comments/Notes or Complaints (e.g., Dependencies—if the milestone depends on or is dependent on other factors or milestones)

4. Hosting Costs: I have not included hosting costs in the initial budget and estimate a monthly hosting cost of $300–$500. I will update the proposal with a new budget shortly.
5. Technical Stack: I intend to use Next.js for the front end and Express.js for the back end.

I am writing up a new budget to accommodate all the feedback received so far, including the cost for platform maintenance across 12 months. Thanks again, I truly appreciate CastleCapital’s support.

Hey, thank you for the feedback! I agree that relying on just one person for development can introduce risks, especially long-term. That’s why I’m open to exploring collaborations or partnerships as the project progresses. The goal isn’t to build a standalone tool and walk away but to create something scalable, adaptable, and integrated with the community’s evolving needs. Additional funding would make this easier, especially for data collection, testing, and long-term maintenance.

This tool isn’t meant to replace all human oversight but to streamline it by improving tracking and visibility across the entire grant landscape with less manual effort. You’re right: if a project truly values funding, it will likely stay on top of its milestones. This tool adds clarity and oversight. Following a suggestion I’ll add to the proposal to make reporting progress through the platform mandatory.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts! Feedback like this is invaluable and ensures the proposal aligns with community needs.

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback and for taking the time to dig into this.

You’re right that the initial budget is small for the scope of development. My initial plan was to keep the scope lean, as this was meant to gauge the DAO's interest in the concept. The original goal was to create an interface for grant recipients to update their milestones, with the platform sending notifications. with notifications sent to users (via email, in-app alerts, Discord, or Telegram) for updates or missed deadlines.

However, based on the feedback and interest from the community, I’m expanding the scope and adjusting the budget to better align with the desired features and technical requirements. To elaborate on how the core features will function I will implement webhooks to monitor APIs like Questbook, Discord, Twitter, etc., to catch real-time events as they happen, for events without real-time API support, I will use periodic polling as a fallback.

The notification system will work by events triggered for example Discord data will be normalized through webhook events, and Firebase will manage the notification states to ensure consistency. I will also use WebSockets to broadcast real-time updates across all connected front-end users.

You brought up another valid point about long-term maintenance. The tool will definitely need some post-launch upkeep. I’m considering introducing a monthly maintenance retainer to ensure it stays functional and receives updates. I would like to hear the community's thoughts on what they think is reasonable in terms of the retainer. It would cover the cost of bug fixing, monitoring third-party API disruptions, server patching, uptime monitoring, following up on users who miss milestone updates, etc.

Ezreal brought up another excellent suggestion: requiring grant recipients to report their progress to me through the platform. This would make tracking milestones even easier and more accurate while adding a layer of accountability. If Questbook is renewed, this platform will integrate easily with their API. However, if it isn’t renewed, the tool will still function fully as a standalone solution.

Haha, I don’t mind the questions at all. Thanks for the encouragement! It means a lot. I’m committed to creating tools that truly add value to the community, and your input helps me refine this vision. Let’s keep building together :metal:

Hi, thank you for your thoughtful feedback! I appreciate your support and the insightful questions you’ve raised.

1. Interface References: For the interface, I envision a dashboard with clear project tracking and milestone progress indicators. It will be similar to tools like Monday.com in terms of layout and interactivity. I plan to share initial wireframes once the proposal is approved so I can gather early feedback from the community. Throughout the development process, we will allow everyone to review and provide feedback.
2. Data Ingestion: The platform will support both manual data input (from grant recipients and project leads) and automatic data ingestion through APIs (e.g., Questbook, Discord, etc.). This approach will allow for flexibility in how data is captured. For instance, grant recipients can manually update their progress, while other data points can be automatically pulled from external tools.
3. Manual Input Fields: Yes, the standard field would be:

• Project Name
• Milestone Description
• Spending for the milestone
• Team member/s
• Outcome Type (Whether it’s a technical, operational, financial, or community-based outcome)
• Milestone Impact (the immediate, short-term effect of the milestone)
• Overall Project Impact (the broader outcome of the entire project)
• KPI (specific measurable metrics or indicators tied to project objectives)
• Completion Percentage
• Deadline
• Status (On Track/Delayed/Completed)
• Comments/Notes or Complaints (e.g., Dependencies—if the milestone depends on or is dependent on other factors or milestones)

4. Hosting Costs: I have not included hosting costs in the initial budget and estimate a monthly hosting cost of $300–$500. I will update the proposal with a new budget shortly.
5. Technical Stack: I intend to use Next.js for the front end and Express.js for the back end.

I am writing up a new budget to accommodate all the feedback received so far, including the cost for platform maintenance across 12 months. Thanks again, I truly appreciate CastleCapital’s support.

Hey, thank you for the feedback! I agree that relying on just one person for development can introduce risks, especially long-term. That’s why I’m open to exploring collaborations or partnerships as the project progresses. The goal isn’t to build a standalone tool and walk away but to create something scalable, adaptable, and integrated with the community’s evolving needs. Additional funding would make this easier, especially for data collection, testing, and long-term maintenance.

This tool isn’t meant to replace all human oversight but to streamline it by improving tracking and visibility across the entire grant landscape with less manual effort. You’re right: if a project truly values funding, it will likely stay on top of its milestones. This tool adds clarity and oversight. Following a suggestion I’ll add to the proposal to make reporting progress through the platform mandatory.

Thanks again for sharing your thoughts! Feedback like this is invaluable and ensures the proposal aligns with community needs.

Thank you for the thoughtful feedback and for taking the time to dig into this.

You’re right that the initial budget is small for the scope of development. My initial plan was to keep the scope lean, as this was meant to gauge the DAO's interest in the concept. The original goal was to create an interface for grant recipients to update their milestones, with the platform sending notifications. with notifications sent to users (via email, in-app alerts, Discord, or Telegram) for updates or missed deadlines.

However, based on the feedback and interest from the community, I’m expanding the scope and adjusting the budget to better align with the desired features and technical requirements. To elaborate on how the core features will function I will implement webhooks to monitor APIs like Questbook, Discord, Twitter, etc., to catch real-time events as they happen, for events without real-time API support, I will use periodic polling as a fallback.

The notification system will work by events triggered for example Discord data will be normalized through webhook events, and Firebase will manage the notification states to ensure consistency. I will also use WebSockets to broadcast real-time updates across all connected front-end users.

You brought up another valid point about long-term maintenance. The tool will definitely need some post-launch upkeep. I’m considering introducing a monthly maintenance retainer to ensure it stays functional and receives updates. I would like to hear the community's thoughts on what they think is reasonable in terms of the retainer. It would cover the cost of bug fixing, monitoring third-party API disruptions, server patching, uptime monitoring, following up on users who miss milestone updates, etc.

Ezreal brought up another excellent suggestion: requiring grant recipients to report their progress to me through the platform. This would make tracking milestones even easier and more accurate while adding a layer of accountability. If Questbook is renewed, this platform will integrate easily with their API. However, if it isn’t renewed, the tool will still function fully as a standalone solution.

Haha, I don’t mind the questions at all. Thanks for the encouragement! It means a lot. I’m committed to creating tools that truly add value to the community, and your input helps me refine this vision. Let’s keep building together :metal:

Hi James. Thank you for the question. Agreed, I will be pursuing the Questbook route.

The progress updates and milestones will rely on manual submissions from grant recipients. The grant owners set the delivery date and terms, and if those aren’t met, automated alerts for deviations or delays will be triggered.

If we wanted to automate aggregation, I could use modular integrations to pull data from different sources like Discord, GitHub, governance forums, etc. However, that would increase the scope of the project and require resources to ensure accuracy and compatibility across platforms. Let me know your thoughts on this.

Hi James. Thank you for the question. Agreed, I will be pursuing the Questbook route.

The progress updates and milestones will rely on manual submissions from grant recipients. The grant owners set the delivery date and terms, and if those aren’t met, automated alerts for deviations or delays will be triggered.

If we wanted to automate aggregation, I could use modular integrations to pull data from different sources like Discord, GitHub, governance forums, etc. However, that would increase the scope of the project and require resources to ensure accuracy and compatibility across platforms. Let me know your thoughts on this.

@EmmanuelO to be direct, I'm very unconvinced by the proposal as it stands and I doubt it would gather any significant support:

• very low cost puts into question understanding what it would take to build and maintain such a platform or structure the relationship with the DAO in a way that makes sense.
• I don't think you have a clear understanding of ArbitrumDAO and what's really needed

My suggestion is to participate more in the DAO, join the regular calls for a month or two, and get a better sense of where things are at. I also invite you to find a mentor who has built something that a DAO is using and ask them what it took to get there and provide you some guidance.

I'm sorry to be negative but I'm hoping this will save you time and effort. This is of course just my opinion. Best of luck whichever path you decide to take!

@EmmanuelO to be direct, I'm very unconvinced by the proposal as it stands and I doubt it would gather any significant support:

• very low cost puts into question understanding what it would take to build and maintain such a platform or structure the relationship with the DAO in a way that makes sense.
• I don't think you have a clear understanding of ArbitrumDAO and what's really needed

My suggestion is to participate more in the DAO, join the regular calls for a month or two, and get a better sense of where things are at. I also invite you to find a mentor who has built something that a DAO is using and ask them what it took to get there and provide you some guidance.

I'm sorry to be negative but I'm hoping this will save you time and effort. This is of course just my opinion. Best of luck whichever path you decide to take!

Hi. It seems to us that this proposal leans more towards the Questbook model, but we don’t want to miss the opportunity to raise a few questions and ideas:

This is a solid approach, but it could be further strengthened by specifying how you plan to structure these collaborations. Are you considering bringing on additional technical team members from the outset or in later phases? Detailing this would provide confidence in the long-term sustainability of the project.

This is an excellent idea, but it might help to define an initial cost range for this retainer. For example, are you considering a percentage of the initial budget or a fixed figure?

You explained that you are "expanding the scope and adjusting the budget to better align with the desired features and technical requirements" and plan to use technologies such as "webhooks to monitor APIs like Questbook, Discord, Twitter, etc." and "WebSockets to broadcast real-time updates." While this expansion adds valuable functionality, it also increases technical complexity. It might be helpful to detail how you will prioritize the initial features to ensure the MVP is functional before implementing the full scope. Do you plan to iterate on the MVP based on early feedback before moving forward?

The tool’s goal is clear, but examples of the practical impact would make the proposal more compelling. For instance, how much manual effort do you expect this tool to save, or how will it specifically improve the experience for grant recipients and the community?

From our perspective, GAP appears to be a solid tool that addresses the technical challenges well, so the issue doesn’t seem to lie in its design or functionality. Instead, the real hurdle seems to be the human coordination needed to ensure all grant programs actively use it. This isn’t a problem that can be solved by simply improving the platform; it’s about creating alignment among operators and grantees. To tackle this, it might be worth exploring ways to motivate operators and grantees to engage with the platform consistently. These are just initial thoughts, but it could be something like introduce reputational incentives, where those who diligently maintain and update their milestones or enforce compliance are rewarded with recognition or other benefits. Alternatively (or perhaps in addition) having a dedicated facilitator or team to manage onboarding and act as a bridge between program operators and grantees could also help. This team could oversee compliance, answer questions, and ensure smooth communication, which might lower barriers for adoption and make the process more seamless for everyone.

Im glad you decided to go through the Questbook path, which I believe is the right choice.

I would like to add that, in my opinion, the budget seems too small to develop a truly robust platform. It might be a good idea to request additional funds when applying for the grant, in case further resources are needed down the line.

I also think it's fantastic that we have a system in place to track each grant awarded and monitor how the corresponding milestones were achieved. This transparency ensures accountability and allows for a clear assessment of progress.

Also could you please explain if running the platform in the future will have anual costs and what would they be???

Also i would suggest you work with some of grant stakeholders like DA to know what is the most relevant infomation needed in a platform like this.

Hey,

Thanks for a proposal that seems to be addressing the needs of the DAO.

By reading this update, I am sure you will be getting success at Questbook & if it doesn't we at Lampros DAO will be happy to help you as the work sounds interesting to us and we will be happy to help you secure the required funding.

Best luck.

Hi @EmmanuelO, thank you for your proposal. Based on its current needs, we think what you’ve put forward makes sense for the DAO, and we are supportive of the proposal.

Some questions:

1. For the interface, do you have any references of what you had in mind for the final product?
2. How would you propose setting up data ingestion? We’re asking because we feel it should be part of your overall proposal. At the moment, it is unclear if the current proposal requires individual working teams to input data into a CMS.
3. And if by manual input, have you considered what the fields would be?
4. We’re assuming hosting costs are not factored in your proposal. What are the server requirements that you’re looking at or would like to propose, and is the expectation that the DAO will provide them?
5. What are the frameworks that will be used for the build?

Also, please factor in an estimate for platform maintenance into your cost for a 12-month period. That’s all from us; we feel that this is a beneficial tool to have for delegates to gain more clarity on the progress of the different funded initiatives.

Honestly I’m not sure how well it’ll work long term if there’s only one person working on development.

With such a limited budget I think you will require additional funding later for data collection, testing, or even future maintenance.

Also, even if the platform works well, grant tracking still requires human involvement—like updating Notion/sheets, contacting project leads, and having experts review and make decisions.

At the end of the day, if a project truly cares about getting funded, they’ll likely stay on top of updates and won’t miss any milestones—maybe even check progress daily :)

Hi. It seems to us that this proposal leans more towards the Questbook model, but we don’t want to miss the opportunity to raise a few questions and ideas:

This is a solid approach, but it could be further strengthened by specifying how you plan to structure these collaborations. Are you considering bringing on additional technical team members from the outset or in later phases? Detailing this would provide confidence in the long-term sustainability of the project.

This is an excellent idea, but it might help to define an initial cost range for this retainer. For example, are you considering a percentage of the initial budget or a fixed figure?

You explained that you are "expanding the scope and adjusting the budget to better align with the desired features and technical requirements" and plan to use technologies such as "webhooks to monitor APIs like Questbook, Discord, Twitter, etc." and "WebSockets to broadcast real-time updates." While this expansion adds valuable functionality, it also increases technical complexity. It might be helpful to detail how you will prioritize the initial features to ensure the MVP is functional before implementing the full scope. Do you plan to iterate on the MVP based on early feedback before moving forward?

The tool’s goal is clear, but examples of the practical impact would make the proposal more compelling. For instance, how much manual effort do you expect this tool to save, or how will it specifically improve the experience for grant recipients and the community?

From our perspective, GAP appears to be a solid tool that addresses the technical challenges well, so the issue doesn’t seem to lie in its design or functionality. Instead, the real hurdle seems to be the human coordination needed to ensure all grant programs actively use it. This isn’t a problem that can be solved by simply improving the platform; it’s about creating alignment among operators and grantees. To tackle this, it might be worth exploring ways to motivate operators and grantees to engage with the platform consistently. These are just initial thoughts, but it could be something like introduce reputational incentives, where those who diligently maintain and update their milestones or enforce compliance are rewarded with recognition or other benefits. Alternatively (or perhaps in addition) having a dedicated facilitator or team to manage onboarding and act as a bridge between program operators and grantees could also help. This team could oversee compliance, answer questions, and ensure smooth communication, which might lower barriers for adoption and make the process more seamless for everyone.

Im glad you decided to go through the Questbook path, which I believe is the right choice.

I would like to add that, in my opinion, the budget seems too small to develop a truly robust platform. It might be a good idea to request additional funds when applying for the grant, in case further resources are needed down the line.

I also think it's fantastic that we have a system in place to track each grant awarded and monitor how the corresponding milestones were achieved. This transparency ensures accountability and allows for a clear assessment of progress.

Also could you please explain if running the platform in the future will have anual costs and what would they be???

Also i would suggest you work with some of grant stakeholders like DA to know what is the most relevant infomation needed in a platform like this.

Hey,

Thanks for a proposal that seems to be addressing the needs of the DAO.

By reading this update, I am sure you will be getting success at Questbook & if it doesn't we at Lampros DAO will be happy to help you as the work sounds interesting to us and we will be happy to help you secure the required funding.

Best luck.