Fund Alternative: A Split Fund Proposal

Split Fund Proposal

Below is another alternative to the fund as proposed by @lehnberg, modified by @tromp in keybase chat


  • 33 btc ($1.5m+) earmarked for a new group, name tbd, funds held in a 4-of-6 multi-sig wallet.

  • Members from the grin community volunteer to be multi-sig keyholders.

  • Council selects from the list of volunteers an initial group of keyholders.

  • Funds to be transferred conditional on a set of spending guidelines being defined that this new group pledges to uphold.

Next Steps

  1. Publish Forum post & call for volunteers

  2. Confirm signers, and announcing them

  3. Signers announce their spending guidelines

  4. Wallet is created, tested, and then funds are transferred

Possible Modifications by @tromp

  • Shift toward 50/50 split over time

Feedback on this proposal can be tracked here and in @grincoin#community_fund keybase

Edit: adjusted modifications to omit possibility of “33BTC split to smaller groups” per @tromp


We would require the second fund to also subscribe to the
“Appropriate and inappropriate uses of the Grin Development Fund” section [1]
but allow them to deviate on “Request for Funding Process” and " Decision Process" as they see fit.

I would omit the “33BTC can be split to smaller groups”.
My intention is that both funds are general purpose, i.e. open to any funding request as deemed appropriate in [1], rather than limited to specific projects.

[1] grin-rfcs/ at master · mimblewimble/grin-rfcs · GitHub


Earmarked yes, but that does not mean such a budget needs to be transfered directly, just slowly increase the amount once applications for proposals come in.

In the long run, good to shift towards the Unified grand model:

What I like about this proposal is that it is plain and simple. Although I am missing that some funds would go to Grin++, although this could be part of the funding from this new council.

Funding for Grin++ can also come from the existing fund. Every good request should be funded, no matter the fund…

1 Like

That is true, and from that point of view I could even say that no change is needed since I cannot recall a single time that funding was denied unjustly…at least, none that I can recall.
I am certain that whichever fund is applied for, Grin++ will find support from the community for its funding.
Anyhow, still in favour of having some seperate funds like in this proposal to fast track the smaller community oriented projects, which are not that interesting for the core developers.

I totally agree: no change is needed. The current system works fine. :slight_smile:

1 Like

It works reasonably well, but there is place for improvements. The last time we decided that no changes was needed, I think roughly a year ago, still new problems arose and especially few community projects came forward (except iron belly and Grin++ Mobile).
-Having a seperate fund for community projects and community members who have autonomy on its spending would certainly improve the feeling of empowerement of the community which some apparently do not feel with the current system.
-From the unified grand proposal idea also somethings can be taken. We need more structure and templates for writing proposals and a second pair of eyes before putting them to community scrutinization which sometimes end in a lot of avoidable negative sentiments.

Plain and simple. Do it.

No Drama.

1 Like

This is still my preferable solution.

It wins with simplicity and minimal additional structure.

I’m not sure if this has been discussed here but I’m assuming responsibilities for the “community” side of this would involve managing and overseeing the forum (here) among other community communications channels. I’m not sure if we need much else decided ahead of time, and hopefully we can assume things will evolve over time.

Are people willing to volunteer to form the initial 6 person group (for 4-6 multisig)?
Is there enough interest to explore this further?

The reason I’m asking this is its unclear how we “decide” which approach is best beyond simply picking one and moving forward with it. If we cannot get 6 people to volunteer then this is probably a non-starter to begin with, so lets rule this in or out now.


This solution has some obvious advantages (“simple”, “better than current state”) and its potential disadvantages (“no measurable improvements”, “not perfect”, “doesn’t make everyone happy”) can still be tackled later on, if the need arrives.

From me this is a :+1: for this proposal, though I certainly would/will give a +1 to other proposals as well.

I’d be willing to be one of the 6 volunteers.


For now this is also my preferred flavour among the proposals. I think Grin++ should be funded for any interesting proposals, but there is no need for a separate council with funding since two councils is enough counting the active community members.
I am also volunteering to be part of this council, although I would prefer to keep most of the Grin fund as it is and only create a wallet that holds the funds necessary for funding the first few proposals and increase the BTC on this wallet only when more proposals come in.
I am also volunteering to help in discussing interesting proposals for Grin++. Grin++ could be a nice playing field to try new things that can later be implemented in the core wallet if they are found to be stable and advantageous.
On the long run, it would be good though to move towards a bit more standardization of proposals, funding request etc. The grand proposal system is therefore something to slowly move towards by improving the standardization of funding requests.


Well, perhaps people volunteering to be on the new council can list their preferred fund proposals. Theirs seem to be the voices that matter most.


Grin++ should not even be consider a topic of argue from what i see they are putting all of their passion into this project. They should be on the payroll by default. The great benefit is: they react, posting their progress without having big arguments with the community about not being transparent.


1 Like

No matter which fund they apply to, I’m sure both Davids as well as other grin++ devs would get funding. DavidT got funded for grin++android. With the new tbd group they don’t even have to ask the “council” for funding, just the “community”.


@siNix What @hendi said. I am certain tGrin++ developers would find support and funding in both councils, most certainly the community one.

1 Like

While simple is good, and this approach does meet the goal of getting more people involved, I’m not entirely convinced this solves the underlying issues. For starters, it doesn’t seem to accomplish Yeast’s original stated goal of having dev team autonomy, so I’m not sure why this is currently seen as the preferred approach.

But it also makes it less obvious where people should be applying for funding. Submitting a public funding request is already problematic for many - most people don’t like to have their salaries/rates published publicly like that, and many people can’t post their rates publicly for a number of reasons. But now they must choose which political faction to apply from, and it might not be obviously clear which is best. This could lead to them having to submit 2 different funding requests if the first one is submitted to the wrong(?) one.

I also think it could just permanently solidify the division in the community. I prefer a solution where the funds have clear intentions, rather than just splitting down the middle(-ish) and calling it a day.

This is not a regular job, 7/24 with social security,lunch cheq business. Many people contributed,as yourself, without paid and only for the devotion and contributing still.
if worried or ashamed or fearing of govts ,etc; contributing for, he/she could apply anonymous,stay like that.
And gradually will be paid partly after contributions,bounties.So being anonymous wont be a problem.

Rules are clear.

We better Do not overcomplicate things,proceed forward.

How can you have transparency in fund spending without knowing how much went to what developer for what period of time for what end results?

There is no wrong one in this proposal, as both funds are for arbitrary requests.

Does that mean the funds should partition the ecosystem to make for disjoint areas of applicability?

1 Like

These seem like orthogonal concerns. Reluctance to post rates in public is an entirely different issue to that of knowing where to best direct a funding request.

On the topic of sharing rates in public - I suspect there would need to be some level of transparency involved. Anybody opposed to sharing this level of information would likely find contributing to an open-source project out in the open like this a poor fit.


Maybe the best way for Dev autonomy is to simply submit a request.
In the end I think the names of the councils do not matter so much. So lets say some community members would join the “Grin++ council”, and you or other Grin++ developers would submit a request:

  • the council would provide feedback, and support any sensible request.
    The same request would be submited to the “Grin Community council”:
  • the council would proide feedback, and support any sensible request

Probably the same active community members would with this proposal be part of the “Grin Community council” as those who would be part of the “Grin++ council” if we would go for that governance model.
Therefore, the end results would be the same.
Since the end result would be roughly the same, having two councils is better than three since we would have more strength and less devision. Even with this split council model, I think there will be some overlap and support between the councils, but hopefully also some more community involvement and some more efficiency since each council can focus on their own areas of interest.

1 Like