Token Engineering Projects
TEC Funding Proposals: What kinds of projects should apply?
The TEC has opened funding proposal submissions for token engineering and related open source projects focused on TE public goods. After gathering feedback from the community, projects will submit these proposals to the DAO (Commons) for voting to receive funds.
So what kind of projects qualify or have a likelihood of getting funded by the community? Let’s first take a look at the TEC mission to see what work could be aligned.
The Mission
One of the TE Commons missions is to gather and steward the efficient distribution of funds to projects in the emerging field of token engineering, thereby encouraging the robust and ethical design of tokenized infrastructures.
The Path
While the goal is clear and the community is aligned around a shared focus, there are many potential paths to take for allocating resources and deciding which projects and work would be the highest leverage for developing token engineering public goods.
Ultimately, these decisions will be up to the community through proposals and voting, however interviews of several TEC stakeholders have supported identifying what projects and development the community would like to fund.
There are three main areas identified, along with corresponding work and examples:
cadCAD development: core tech, models & analysis
DAO/commons modules
Governance tools & models
Iterations on market mechanisms & components: bonding curve innovation
Crypto economic building blocks for Web 3.0
Legal research or academic papers
Developing TE standards
Creating articles, courses and books
Adding to or organizing the knowledge base of token engineering
Conferences or events / presentations & talks
Ambassadors & academic influencers
Media or public relations work spreading TE visibility
Open source / unpaid, non-profit project advisory & consulting
Here are some responses from community members who were interviewed about their preferences for what the TEC would fund and not fund:
PREFER TO FUND:
“I would prioritize funding which generates the largest possible value, either because it is of extreme value to some, or some value for many. Ideally we can take care of fundamental needs in time, so that we enjoy the luxury to emphasize effort towards development of general purpose technology and fundamental research, once the basics are covered.”
“Willing to fund: creative open-source crypto economic mechanisms (models, simulations) and respective education, even if funded proposals not tied to a common goods use case, because great mechanisms should be applicable to many areas.”
“Fund: applications for resource management.”
PREFER NOT TO FUND:
“I would not want to enable efforts that are not calibrated by some sort of feedback mechanism, regardless how well intended. We always need to be ready for the unforeseeable, spontaneous innovation and random events, as well as the chance that some of our assumptions might be wrong, so I do believe there is an ethical need for our solutions to be self-regulating by design, as it otherwise we might not exhibit the wisdom to navigate the power at hand (even if that is inadvertently enabling an agenda we didn’t even consider ourselves…”
“A startup (“to launch this, we need x for the next 12 months”), covers much more than token engineering, I expect proposals to be tied to specific token engineering challenges.”
“Making economic profit.”
Feel free to share your thoughts on this thread in the forum.
Last updated
