Discord Mod allocations - 945k NAM

PGF Ops Proposal 🗳️
1

edit: voting for Prop18 is live! https://interface.namada.tududes.com/governance/proposal/18

Hello! :wave: I’m writing this on behalf of Luminara :low_brightness:

Proposal

This is a Public Goods Funding (PGF) proposal to allocate 945,000 NAM in total to the Namada Discord moderators:

  • 180k NAM – 0xGolden | deNodes tnam1qz7mggh56wlljs0wfgkxj6r9xe36cacfkgnr99kc
  • 180k NAM – Tree tnam1qpyrs8q9qzupca4gdalmwevkmdsyxenswq5xvstm
  • 180k NAM – kelpie tnam1qqqdr4y4zymc3ctsthpy0fcezdn4jvjl6ye073k0
  • 90k NAM – Hoan Wu tnam1qpnyherlyqel5x5xqyfqngpqymyeqrf5fgqvxc38
  • 90k NAM – Daniel | Mandragora tnam1qzcgkzmddnru8w07zntd6wpywd8vptdgpu8mz44a
  • 90k NAM – sirouk | TuDudes tnam1qq0t2s4dmqvxqwl25fm3eyckgekgftggfg9nfe5h
  • 90k NAM – TG tnam1qq0ph5svjjspkaz2ntw49j2zq8855237qcfuupjt
  • 45k NAM – M | CryptoSJ tnam1qpj9aye7zd86pgfpjh2pnal3yjzrfkff2s6n5fq4

Context

The people with mod roles in our Discord have stayed alert through quiet times, and helped us to weather storms through seasons of chaos. It’s been a long haul, and these folks have helped us chug along; :locomotive: some since January 2023, others since January 2024.

Mods were not included in the genesis proposal, but we think that this PGF proposal offers an opportunity to close that loop with gratitude and good faith.

History

Moderation hasn’t been a formal role in Namada. There was no understanding or agreement that mod privileges would come with compensation, and expectations were either left unspoken or were inconsistent across time, project phases, and responsible individuals.

However, moderation is often compensated in other crypto communities, and some of these contributors moderate other crypto communities professionally. Others jumped in purely out of care and commitment to Namada’s early days. But all have supported our community through both calm and chaotic seasons. :roller_coaster:

While we haven’t treated this as a job, we do believe this is the right moment to recognize and thank them. This proposal acknowledges that ambiguity, and aims to resolve it cleanly.

Future

This isn’t about setting precedent. We believe moderation in our community, going forward, should not be transactional. Instead of moderators as enforcers or outsourced roles, we hope to encourage stewardship: welcoming newcomers, encouraging healthy dialogue, and supporting autonomy with the help of bots and tools to handle spam.

This proposal will allow us to close the chapter on early moderation efforts with clarity, appreciation, and fairness, and move into our next chapter with stronger alignment.

Thanks

Thank you to @ke1pie, who has been instrumental in patiently carrying this forward for many months, and thank you to everyone who helped keep the lights on :light_bulb:

9 Likes
2

I support this. (extra characters)

4 Likes
3

Big thanks to @ke1pie for pushing this forward, and to all the moderators who’ve supported the community through both quiet and chaotic times. Your care and commitment have made a real impact. :green_heart:

I’m fully in support of this proposal — it’s a well-deserved recognition for the people who’ve helped shape and sustain Namada’s early days.

Excited for what’s ahead. Let’s keep building! :rocket:

4 Likes
4

Support this proposal. My feedback is moderator’s need to stay more active, maybe hire more if possible. Thanks.

2 Likes
5

We recognize the intent to automate parts of moderation and appreciate the aim to reduce friction and overhead. Bots and tools are effective at handling spam and rule violations, but moderation is more than that.

At its core, moderation is a form of cultural stewardship. It’s the human work of onboarding newcomers, maintaining healthy dialogue, and holding space when tensions/nuanced questions rise. These functions are crucial for any protocol seeking to establish long-term legitimacy and alignment.

We’re concerned that this proposal suggests a shift away from resourcing those social roles, just as their long-term value is becoming more clear. Automation is helpful, but not a full replacement. If we underinvest in the human layer of our governance, we risk losing the connective tissue that holds decentralized communities together.

We support compensating past contributors, but more importantly, we urge the community to establish a clear model for sustaining these essential human contributions in the future. We’ve witnessed noble governance efforts fizzle out due to the sole reliance on the altruism of the community. Perhaps some examples of discord communities that are on the other end of the spectrum regarding “transactional moderation” would be helpful in framing the future vision better.

2 Likes
6

I am adding my two cents; please take this as constructive feedback. I value all the work done by the people you’ve mentioned here.
That said, this proposal might be missing quite a few contributors, especially those who may not hold a moderator role but are regularly or occasionally active in the community, particularly on Discord. Expand the scope to include people actively helping others, reporting bugs, sharing feedback, or contributing in any way, even partially.
Additionally, we should also consider contributions beyond Discord. What about those using GitHub to submit PRs or helping in the forum?
Lastly, it might make sense to establish a transparent foundation in the future, with a clear role description, expectations, and boundaries.
I’m just sharing an idea; feel free to disagree!

5 Likes
7

I agree with a lot of this. I think moderation is important, and unlike those helping on a voluntary and non-committal basis, moderators have been asked to take on a special role, and there should be some form of fair compensation there (as I think is addressed with this proposal retroactively).

2 Likes
8

Edit: this proposal has an error, please vote ‘nay’

This mainnet proposal has launched, see: https://explorer75.org/namada/proposals/17 :rocket:

Voting will begin at ~17:45 UTC today (Apr 24) and last for 6 days.
Reminder :warning: validators will only be able to vote during the first 4 days (96 hours).

Tested the proposal code and Housefire Prop25 was successful:
https://explorer75.org/namada-housefire/proposals/25

Modified the testnet proposal code a bit for the mainnet proposal code, see comparison here:

9

hey Chris! thanks for weighing in. i’m personally familiar with the governance work burnout

to be clear, we’re talking about using tooling for spam/scam clearing. the tools would enable community members in the channel to flag spam for removal without having to tag mods

there are pretty active folks in our community that are already great stewards in and outside of discord, as @maxpower-01 has observed, and personally i think that this deserves recognition (thanks @maxpower-01 :raising_hands: )

3 Likes
10

Voting has begun :ballot_box:

Voting for Prop18 began ~17:45 UTC today (Apr 24) and will last for 6 days.
Reminder :warning: validators will only be able to vote during the first 4 days (96 hours).

Note
Prop18 is a replacement for Prop17–please vote ‘nay’ on Prop17

I made a mistake with one of the recipient addresses and have now corrected it. Here is the corrected mainnet proposal code and here is the difference between Prop17 vs Prop18:
https://www.diffchecker.com/rTPOJa1w/

Apologies for any confusion. Ready for the 2k NAM deposit to burn :fire:

11

Appreciate the thoughtful reply, Gavin. Just to clarify, this is Othman on the ChainflowPOS account (not Chris). I’ve been leading on protocols and governance for a while now.

Totally hear you on the tooling point, and it’s great to see active stewards stepping up organically. That said, I still think it’s worth keeping a close eye on burnout. If we want to build this community sustainably, we’ve gotta make sure the human layer is supported too :slight_smile:

Open to jamming on this more in the future if helpful!

1 Like
12

Moderation is hard I’d like to extend my thanks to the folks who have been helping. Thanks for keeping the discord servers more safe!

Support. :shield: