Community Grants Committee

PoolTogether Community Grants Committee


5/1/21 -

  • The Community Grants Committee is solely a grants committee in a traditional fashion. Any formulation of a contributors group/committee is a separate entity. Funding of the aforementioned group may be possible through the grants committee in terms of a grant application but is outside the scope of this proposal.
  • Grants Lead position is an active, not a passive role. The Lead, and Grants Committee as a whole, is responsible for the steady influx of potential beneficial grant applications.
  • PT Tech Lead serves only in an advisory role as expert of PT protocol; not included on committee multisig.
  • Brendan, PT Inc., has volunteered for the PT Tech Lead role.
  • Multisig requirement: 3 of 5 - Lead and 4 Reviewers
  • In spirit of keeping it simple: Reviewers will be compensated in the form of a monthly stipend of $2500 USD per month
  • Community Grants Lead position proposals: here. If interested, please pitch yourself on that thread. The goal is to determine the Community Grants Lead position by Thursday 5/6/21. Once the Lead position is decided we will then fill the Reviewer positions.

These updates supersede any of the below statements that may contradict.

Content “forked” from the AAVE Community Grants Program (ARC: Aave Community Grants Program - General - Aave)

Authored by: @blakeburrito, @McOso, & @Taliskye


This is a continuation of the first attempt of community engagement in creation of a grants committee (Previous Post). We have heard your feedback on this forum and on discord. We took the community’s input and the information from the original write-up to create this new proposal.


We want to start a community-led program to fund ideas submitted by the PoolTogether protocol’s community, with a focus on empowering a wider network of community developers and contributors and increase adoption of the PoolTogether protocol. We would like this program to be driven by regular PoolTogether community members and share this proposal for feedback from the community.


To promote inclusivity, transparency, and a streamlined avenue for funding development in the PoolTogether ecosystem, while maintaining the decentralized nature of the ecosystem; we propose a community-led, for the community, by the community, grants program. For the purpose of this Pre-PTIP, we’ll refer to it as the PoolTogether Community Grants Committee, or PTCGC.

The goal of the program is to provide resources to grow the PoolTogether ecosystem in a way that can scale over time. There are many great ideas for improving the protocol bubbling up in the Discord, community forum and other places. We hope to initiate a community-led, transparent process for connecting those developers/creators/innovators with resources needed to go from idea to funded development.

Given the difficulty of decentralizing grants administration, we propose establishing a committee which has the power to administer grants on a discretionary basis. The focus will be on disbursing grant funding effectively and quickly to individuals and teams working to improve the PoolTogether ecosystem.

Proposal Description

Our proposal is inspired by the Compound and Uniswap grants programs, which have both received approvals to deploy $1m and $750k per quarter, respectively. And includes inspiration from the Aave Grants Proposal, which is asking for $2.25m for 2 quarters.

We propose to run the pilot grants program over two quarters. We request a total budget of $400k per quarter, with the operating budget accounting for a maximum of $85k. The operating budget will be used to pay the leads, reviewers, and other administrative costs to set up the program.

The expenses will be priced in USD at the beginning of each quarter. The reviewers will ensure that all unspent funds will be returned to the Ecosystem Reserve at the conclusion of the pilot. If the program is underfunded because POOL’s token price falls significantly, the committee may request the underfunded amount from governance. After running the pilot program for one quarter, the community can vote to continue, modify, or discontinue the program.

Applications will be reviewed and funded on a rolling basis. The applications approved and funded within each quarter will form a funding round which will be tracked, supported, and documented.

Documentation of results will be made available to the community at the end of each round, at which point we will solicit feedback from the community. The idea is to start with a rough MVP (Minimum Viable Product) and evolve through community feedback. We expect to learn a lot about how to do this right in the first 2 quarters and anticipate making changes to the grants program over time through subsequent proposals.

Committee Members

We propose a committee of 6 members: 1 Community Lead, 4 Reviewers, and 1 PoolTogether Inc. Technical Lead. The Community Lead will be the organizational backbone of the program and ensure that things move smoothly and efficiently. The Community Lead will likely dedicate a significant amount of time to the program. The PoolTogether Inc. Technical Lead will operate from an advisory role for the committee, on an as needed basis to assist with technical capabilities within the protocol.

Reviewers will process applications, advocate for the community, assist PoolTogether participants, ensure that the lead is acting in good faith and is effective in their role, and will operate a 4 of 6 multisig which disburses funds to grantees. The reviewers will also hold the program accountable to its goals and objectives and return any excess funds to the PoolTogether Ecosystem Reserve. Reviewers are likely to dedicate a smaller amount of time to the program.

Both the lead and the reviewers will serve for a period of two quarters. After two quarters, the grants program and the committee member positions will be up for renewal. This will be put up on the governance forum for a discussion and subsequent on-chain vote.

Members may be replaced during the pilot program, for example, if they find they are not able to dedicate sufficient time to the program. We aim to be as transparent as possible and get feedback on the PoolTogether forum and discord if there are any changes to the committee during the program.

If you are interested in being a reviewer or lead, please reply to this thread with your interest with some basic info on yourself, including:

  • Describe your involvement in the PoolTogether ecosystem
  • What skills/experience do you bring to the committee?
  • Can you commit ~10 hours a week as a reviewer or ~30 hours a week as a lead?

How the voting mechanism will be achieved is TBD.

Community Lead: person


  1. person
  2. person
  3. person
  4. person

PoolTogether Inc. Technical Lead: @Brendan


We request a max grants budget of $400k to distribute grants, of which a max operating budget of $85k per quarter to pay the leads, reviewers, and other administrative costs to set up the grants program. This will be funded by the PoolTogether Ecosystem Reserve.

Payments to the lead and reviewers will be approved by the 4 of 6 multisig signers and made at the end of every month (i.e., if the program begins on 4/20/21, the lead and reviewers will be paid on 5/20/21, and then again on 6/20/21 and 7/20/21 based on their corresponding weekly hour commitment).

Any changes to the PTCGC including renewal of the program at the end of 2 quarters, total quarterly budget and committee compensation will require quarterly authorization.

Committee Compensation

We suggest compensation for the lead roughly in line with the initial Uniswap and Compound proposals - $100/hr for a maximum of 30 hrs/week. This compensation will be allocated to the PTCGC multisig from the PoolTogether Ecosystem Reserve as part of the overall funding for the program.

The time commitment for the reviewers is likely to be lower. The compensation for reviewers will be $100/hr for a maximum of 10 hrs/week. This compensation will be allocated to the PTCGC multisig from the PoolTogether Ecosystem Reserve as part of the overall funding for the program.

All compensations will be paid in POOL at the USD spot price during distribution.


To help inform the types of grants and community led initiatives which are most likely to get funded, we highlight the following target areas:

  • Protocol development (including core PoolTogether protocol development, development of higher layer protocols which use the PoolTogether protocol)
  • Applications and integrations (front-ends and other applications/yield sources that use the PoolTogether protocol)
  • Developer tooling
  • Community (marketing and educational)
  • Committees, sub-committees, and DAOs that serve the PoolTogether ecosystem
  • Code audits
  • Events and hackathons
  • Bounties
  • Community contests and giveaways

What Does Success Look Like?

We will evaluate the success of the program against the following criteria:

Measurable criteria:

  • Growth in the number of grants applications received quarter-over-quarter
  • Growth in the number of projects, ideas, and events funded
  • Growth in community engagement (e.g. increased activity on forums, Discord, etc.)
  • Growth in PoolTogether pools driven by applications funded via grants (e.g. increased TVL, increased yield integration, and unique addresses due to apps funded by grants)

Subjective criteria:

  • Improved sentiment and goodwill within the community
  • Improvement to the PoolTogether protocol’s brand and positioning in the market

Timeline / Process

Quarter 1 will be for three months from the day the grants proposal has been approved. For example, if the proposal is approved on 4/21/2021, Quarter 1 of the PTCGC will be from 4/21/2021 to 7/21/2021 and Quarter 2 of the PTCGC will be from 7/22/2021 to 10/22/2021.

If approved, starting immediately after a proposal is ratified, PTCGC will begin accepting applications on a rolling basis. The grants committee will determine how funding is to be disbursed (e.g. milestones, upfront, etc.) on a case-by-case basis. In general, the goal will be to align long-term incentives with the interests of the PoolTogether community and POOL holders.

At the end of each round, the committee is responsible for sharing all the grant recipients along with amounts and descriptions as part of a transparent quarterly review process. The end of the Round 2 marks the end of the pilot. At that point, the community will decide based on the results of the first two rounds whether or not to continue funding PTCGC (in the same or an amended form).

Most grants will have 1-2 milestones and recipients will receive about half the grant upfront and half on the completion of a milestone. For more complex projects or larger grants, there may be several milestones and payments could be split across these milestones. PTCGC will get progress updates from teams and assess the completion of these milestones. This ensures downside protection for the PTCGC in case the project is unsuccessful or needs to pivot.

If PTCGC has distributed all grants but has more promising projects to fund, it can propose increasing the budget to governance. However, it is entirely up to the PoolTogether community to vote on whether to increase the budget.


If feedback is positive, the PTCGC will move to a governance proposal and if ratified, will begin accepting applications for grants on a rolling basis shortly after its approval.

Should the pilot be successful, we could scale the program over time to accommodate more capital-intensive grants (including protocol work) so that it can ultimately become a primary engine of funding in the PoolTogether ecosystem.

We are POOL holders who want POOL holders to lead and participate in the community. We are committed to the success of PTCGC and to the PoolTogether protocol. However, this is an experiment. If it does not work, hopefully we’ll have learned how we can implement this better and can help others pursue alternative approaches. We look forward to hearing your comments and questions below.


Latest working doc as reference: latest doc


This is the Aave proposal we started from for reference.


I am interested in becoming a reviewer. I have been involved with the PoolTogether community for about 8 months now. I am active in the discord and the governance forum. PoolTogether is what got me into Defi. PoolTogether is my sole focus. I do not actively participate in other crypto communities like I do here.
I have project management skills in construction in the physical world. I also have supply chain distribution and logistics experience. These tasks involve coordinating with many groups inside and out of the organization I work for. I believe this is a valuable skill. I lack technical knowledge but I bring organization and efficiency.
I do not have kids or a wife so ten hours a week would be no problem for me. I would enjoy the opportunity to contribute to the protocol in a more meaningful way.
Thanks for putting this proposal out. It is well done.


I chatted with a couple of people yesterday on whether they would be interested in the lead role.
Most of the responses I got were “I’d be interested, but the time commitment is too large to fit my schedule”.

To accommodate this, I would like to leave the option open for two people to apply for the lead position together, as co-leads. They would need to be able to work together well and communicate effectively to not cause additional overhead by splitting the role. Their combined time allocation would still be capped at 30h/week.

I think this will give us a bigger pool of applications for the role from which we can choose the best one.


I would be happy to be a co-lead with you @Torgin


Lots of kudos should go to @Taliskye, @blakeburrito and @McOso for all of their hard work on putting this together.

I agree with @Torgin on having two leads. Based on feedback I have received, there should be a community lead and a technical lead with 4 reviewers. However, I think that is what the intent of the original proposal at the top of this thread references - it implies someone from PoolTogether Inc as being that technical lead. In my opinion, the leads should have demonstrable leadership experience (5+ years) and the reviewers should have project experience (3+ years).

I’m not sure how it will work, but it would be really cool to set up some way for people to vote so there can be a competitive and qualified process for everyone in the community to participate.
That’s my 0.000000369 BTC ($0.02USD).


Hi folks, I would like to say having seen our attempts at a Swim team committee to this has been a wonderful transition and I am pleased with the progress we’ve made to figure things out! This looks great especially having taken inspiration from the recent AAVE grants committee.

The Pokemon Trading Card Game Commitee PoolTogether Community Grants Committee is what we need!

Andy would like to nominate himself for a reviewer role!

  • Describe your involvement in the PoolTogether ecosystem
    I’ve been a user of PT since Feb. of last year, have lurked for quite some time but the past few months i’ve really became involved with the community. When our governance started I first began sponsoring 50% of gas fees for users to delegate their votes (to themselves or others, not to me!)
    Attended every swim meet & community call (you can check my POAP’s :wink:)

Since then i’ve been involved with discussions on various PTIPs and even co-authored our upcoming NFT one with @gabor once we define a few more details.

Also wrote up a simple tutorial to help users get to the new polygon prize pool, with some helpful edits by @blakeburrito

  • What skills/experience do you bring to the committee?

I would say my greatest skill is pragmatic judgement. My degree is in Sociology which I would argue is the perfect one for such a community structure.

Sociology- the study of the development, structure, and functioning of human society.

Mix that in with my community management, crypto experience (2017 hodler) and various skillsets I’d like to believe I’ve got what it takes.

  • Can you commit ~10 hours a week as a reviewer or ~30 hours a week as a lead?

I spend more than that already haha!


re: splitting up lead role between 2 people… I think the main responsibilities of the lead role (to steer the program overall, hold people accountable, and be the main point of contact) kind of precludes it from being shared between 2.

the argument could be made IMO that we could maybe benefit from a larger committee, but we shouldn’t break up current roles to do so. otherwise the lead kinda just becomes 2 additional reviewers.


Hmm. I took some time to think over this distribution of rewards. We have a lot of talented and active community members that can greatly contribute to the community. What are your thoughts on maintaining the same budget for the Committee members, lowering the pay slightly but increasing the number of members?


I tend to agree. We could just cut the reviewer max hours in half. That spreads the stress and challenges among a broader base.


i don’t think the comp would match the workload.

anything less than the 10 hours set now just isn’t realistic.

I’d be more in favor of increasing the reviews/coaches hours actually.

several community members do that much now easily.

1 Like

People may do that much total work, but I don’t think committee work will often be more than 5 hours a week. I think it’s important that the hours logged for grants are used specifically for grants.

If someone spends time on other things, they can apply for a grant to get paid for that too.

I agree that it’s a possibility to open up more positions with fewer hours each, but at some point the scheduling and communication becomes large, and the committee becomes inefficient.
You don’t want too many cooks in the kitchen.


I was referring to keeping the hours the same, lowering the $/hr and increasing # of members. Does not have to be a major cut or be implemented at all. Just putting the thought out there to consider that option!

1 Like

Describe your involvement in the PoolTogether ecosystem

I’ve been following the project since the V1 launch, and have been active in the Discord since last year. I also participate in most community/dev calls each week and am aware of the broad stroke goals of the community (including further integrations/partnerships, perpetual growth, and further tooling/features on top of PT). Further, I try to share PT’s updates and progress in the broader Ethereum community, as I try to do with all the exciting projects that I follow (the more the ecosystem can learn, the more we learn how the ecosystem connects, and can connect in the future).

What skills/experience do you bring to the committee?

I’ve been following the Ethereum space for years, and watched DeFi grow from the early ideas into the DeFi ecosystem we enjoy today. I want to bring my experience of the broader ecosystem into helping the PT grants committee grow into one that is as respectable as something like the Uniswap grants committee. I also can provide my experience evaluating projects and teams (through whitepapers, proposals, or otherwise) to helping a PT grants committee acheive its goal of improving the Ethereum and PT ecosystems.

Can you commit ~10 hours a week as a reviewer or ~30 hours a week as a lead?

I can commit 10-30 hours/week.


I spent some time today reading the proposals for the other grant committees after which we are modeling.

It seems the idea there is that the lead does all the work and the reviewers just keep the lead in check and sign transactions.

If we want to do it that way, 10h per week for reviewers is way too much.

I think it’s also an option to model it differently, where reviewers are more active and the lead mostly facilitates communication and organization, delegating part of the work to the reviewers.

In this case 30h per week for the lead is too much (since the workload is reduced by delegating).

So in summary, I think we should decide on which of these models we want to follow and either reduce the reviewer hour cap or the lead hour cap.

1 Like

I was under the assumption that a large part of the reviewers time spent would be coordinating with these grant teams, reviewing applications, communicating with the community for ideas & general PT housekeeping.

I know if I was selected I’d spend even more time on supporting the PT protocol even outside of the grants program.

Makes sense to structure it with lower hours for now. Can always scale up if it becomes necessary!

I think it’s very important to define the scope.
I imagined the paid hours to only include work done specifically related to grants. This would include coordinating with the grants teams, but not general housekeeping.

I don’t think work outside of the grants program should be eligible. That would be something that people could apply for a grant for.

The committee is only for reviewing, following up on and supporting grants.


Thanks for bringing this up. Let me try to give a little insight on our thought process and how we decided on the hour allocations of committee members. We used Uniswap, Compound, and AAVE grants committees as reference (mainly AAVE with the hour allocations).

AAVE has 75 total hours allocated to their entire grants committee every week: 40 hours for the lead, 5 hours per reviewer. This is where we decided to have the Community Lead capped at 30 hours a week and each Reviewer at 10 hours. This would be a total of 70 hours per week, 5 hours less than AAVE. But this also doesn’t take into consideration the Technical Lead’s hours, since that was under defined when creating this post. If it is decided that the Technical Lead can take some hours away from the Community lead or Reviewers I think that is fine, as long as we stay under 75 hours a week.

Would it be difficult to separate out the hours that were spent on grants specifically vs contributing to the community? The work outside of grants specifically will still be valuable. There will need to be some degree of leniency on that in my opinion.

Secondly, I propose increasing the number of reviewers and decrease the hours to five. We have less spots on our committee than others do. Uniswap has 6, and AAVE Has 8.