Proposal 19: Smart Ecosystem Fund


Launch Ecosystem Fund initiative for rewarding PowerPool community contributors. The size of the Ecosystem fund is not limited by any particular CVP number and depends on approved proposals.

Reward community contributors that already provided valuable services by direct payment from team’s multi-sig (according to the thread):

  1. @Getmegone 37 translations: 1030 CVP
  2. @alb2001 36 translations: 909.2 CVP

Collect all contributors allocations into the next proposal and vote on them (allocation size and vesting rules to be defined in discussion):

  1. protocol politicians and strategy - @Sergey, @zero, @defi, @dae
  2. translators: @Getmegone, @alb200
  3. marketing, content, etc if there will be any submissions

Create a special category on the forum: Ecosystem Fund and track all submissions and results there. Assign most active community members: @sergey @zero @dae @defi @vasilysumanov as community revisors for tracking submissions and results.


PowerPool protocol grows rapidly and requires additional community efforts for sustainable growth and development. This work should be rewarded in CVP tokens.

The community previously raised this issue in several forum threads and received a lot of responses and support:
Smart Ecosystem Fund Idea


The “Community contributor” definition means any community member that can provide valuable service to the community in any form - strategy, research, coding, design, social media promotion, content creation, translations, youtube promotion, etc. Security audits for PowerPool products and other expenses are also included in the “Community contribution” category.

Payment should be linearly vested which ensures the possibility to return stake back to the community if work wasn’t provided or didn’t meet KPIs or deadlines.

The selection of community contributors should work as follows:

  1. Community member raises a topic regarding his contribution to CVP community with KPIs/deadlines
  2. Community discuss proposed services, compensation size and vesting scheme
  3. Anyone from Community Revisors group issues an official proposal
  4. If the proposal was approved, necessary amount of CVP is deposited to the vesting contract and can be claimed by community contributor’s address

Every community contributor that received vested payment should open a thread at the forum under the Ecosystem Fund category and publish work results according to roadmap/KPIs/deadlines. If the community isn’t satisfied with the results, a dispute should be opened.

Dispute algorithm:

  1. Any community member can contact anyone from the Community Revisors team (@sergey @zero @dae @defi @vasilysumanov) if he is isn’t satisfied with services provided
  2. Members of the Community Revisors team open discussions in the thread related to this service/community contribution
  3. After clarification of the situation there are two options: (1) service is provided correctly and fully according to initially stated KPIs/deadlines/roadmap (2) service isn’t provided correctly and CVP stake (share that is still locked according to the vesting schedule) should be returned to team’s multi-sig
  4. In case of 3(2) special proposal is officially issued by anyone from Community Revisors team
  5. If proposal issued according to point 4 is approved by the community, remaining CVP stake is returned back to the community (team’s multi-sig)

Where we can propose new contributor’s roles? Do I understand it correctly that there will be new category here in the forum Ecosystem Fund?

What would be the (continuous) source of funding for the Fund once the cancelled 350k CVP allocation is depleted?

I am happy it is finally published as final edition after numerous topics here on the forum!
Let’s push this guys, and start a new page in PowerPool x Community work

1 Like

Yeah, I as understand there will be a new category and everyone can launch a thread and offer something to the community

Thank you for accumulating all info in 1 thread) It was nearly impossible to set all up together)
I am “For” and soon will provide info about activities we are gonna to make with Ru-community)

Thank you guys. Besides all translation work I will also try to build a Spanish community as well.

We are currently training and testing a group of promoters around 10 people focusing on:
Reddit & 4chan

Will be read to present you KPIs and budget the next week.

Go $CVP!

1 Like

@pahuyswap we suggest to add @Getmegone to the Revisors team as responsible for translations. He offered control the group of 10 translators and be responsible for quality/deadlines. Let’s do it?

1 Like

I`m in. 17th proposal will be edited soon (after fund voting): splited to research article and short text for proposal. And after that we can start “hiring” translators for the languages we dont have yet.
UPD: splited research and proposal.
Proposal: Proposal 17: Translator`s value proposition for PowerPool
Research: Crypto adoption + English proficiency statistics
Will launch voting after Smart Ecosystem Fund voting to be sure that we have a full scheme for translators.

As I understood from @Getmegone’s proposal, he has more like a “chief-translator” role, protecting other translators’ interests. But I can see how it may decrease coordination cost, so if you think it’s better to unite them, let’s do it.

Should we add somebody from the marketing team to the Revisors Group as well? @PowerLul said, they will be ready to present their ideas and draft team composition in a couple of days.

1 Like

Protecting interests, creating community, checking quality, acting as a payment hub etc) I am ready to do all that)

Wow. Great work.
Thank you for work and i mean it.

I think, we definitely need some kind of structure for community rewards.

What you described is very complicated thing:

  1. Revisors need some sort of constitution, where described their rights and obligations.
    Maybe the simple one, but i believe that revisors need to share same interests.

  2. Revisors need some sort of reports for community. What have been done, what will be done, etc. Data should be transparent as much as possible.

  3. Revisors’ seats should be replaceable. Anything can happen with current politicians and i believe PP will attract in future more guys which are worthy.

It’s quite the work and i think the good way to start is create separate topic. We dont really need create onchain prop for this.
Topic for structure, current projects, etc

Also i propose to rule Fund through multisig. 4/6 with @powerpoolAdmin should be good.


I can also help out with content, strategy, business development as these are all things I do regularly. :wink:

Also after dicussion i would like to help with onchain prop creation, if you need it.


Thanks for your workd @pahuyswap
actionable way to set it up.I understand how hard it is to structure a govn structure as I still trying to structure it from my side from time to time

I incline to vote FOR

Though I dont see the numbers for the revisors/politician rewards and the distribution method,probably need a separate proposal for it.
Otherwise technically

this mechanics wont work I am afraid. to be more precise it will be working for some of the workstreams but wont work for most of the workstreams I am involved with

So I rather consider voting FOR to just start this process in a formal way, and think that the next proposal on governance (maybe mine in case I ll have time to finalize) will significantly change the mechanics of rewards distribution for the politician/strategists.

1 Like

I need to apologize, but on second thought I would say I am AGAINST this proposal

As I mentioned, I very much appreciate the work you’ve done (and this not just words - I fully understand how hard it is to pull together the governance stuff), and the proposal itself is well-structured


for the strategists/politician roles, I have to admit that it would be better to just have the guys on pseudo-fixed salaries.

I am saying just for myself, but to go via the whole formal procedure (creating proposal for me to being paid, waiting for discussion, putting on voting, waiting for results) is

  1. more time-consuming than the work itself (I estimate the formal part would take 50-60% of time, and note - this time wont bring any value to the project)
  2. pretty often when speak about the tasks need to be solved we have 1-2-3 days to get the things done (and here I would need to spend 1 week minimum just to start working on the issue)
  3. it disregards the input already provided (from what I see at least maybe I am mistaken)

Again, its good to finally settle with the translators and looks like with marketing part as well (but their services are pretty easily benchmarkable) and have the frameworks you laid out for committees
Just the part which is most difficult for me (the strategists/politician rewards) still needed to be done in my opinion.

Keep working, will revert with my proposal for this part


I agree with this wholeheartedly. If we’re going to treat contributors as Governance employees then the employment term and compensation size must justify the lengthy governance process to get paid.

prepare your offers, guys let’s proceed with it.
@Sergey @DeFi @dae

1 Like