Thank you for presenting this proposal to the community forum. While you have taken care to outline your ideas, we have identified several issues that currently lead us to lean toward a negative vote if the proposal were presented as is. In the interest of providing constructive feedback and offering the opportunity for revisions, we will share the points of contention we have identified:
This is particularly concerning. At Govmos, we have a member (Phil_RX) who fits your VIP criteria. His insights suggest that such a 50% referral fee split is far from industry standards, except for brokers with questionable practices. He noted that typical practices rarely exceed 30%.
Secondly, you plan to allocate three personnel for this task over the next 12 months, including one full-time commitment. We believe this staffing allocation is overstated by a large margin.
For now, we would like to see you deliver on the grant and reassess the VIP tier at a later date. While the idea holds promise, we believe the current grant proposal lacks sufficient depth, especially in comparison to the significant workforce you propose. We recommend reviewing this proposal after delivering the Affiliate platform. Once you have it up and running, we suggest upgrading the platform incorporating a registration process for VIP affiliates using the criteria set out in your proposal, while reducing the fee model to 30% to align with realistic industry standards. If this registration demonstrates significant demand for VIP affiliates, then we would consider allocating paid staff to manage it. At present, however, the anticipated demand seems overstated relative to the immediate costs you propose for the chain.
We hope this message is not taken as an offense. We believe the proposal is premature and requires further development before being considered viable. We encourage you to test your thesis and gauge actual demand for such a VIP tier. If the demand is evident, we recommend your team apply for another grant to manage the VIP program, which would fall under the supervision of the grants sub-DAO—a more appropriate entity to review the allocation’s viability than the broader community.
Thank you for your time,
Govmos
