Solution Provider: Developing Clear and Efficient Guidelines
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Solution Provider Proposition Requirements List
- Clarity in Both Format: Smart Contract Version and Written Proposition Version
- DAO Voting: In-Depth Understanding
- Conclusion
Introduction
ThreeFold needs to clearly define the requirements for any solution provider on the TFGrid. We need to define the steps needed, both on chain and in public communication. The goal is to ensure a cohesive approach that anyone participating on the TFGrid can understand.
We provide a list of requirements for any solution provider to answer clearly for each solution proposed to the TFGrid.
We propose that the solution provider proposition (the written post on the TF Forum) should take into account all the details of the blockchain smart contract version of the solution provider.
We advocate that the DAO voting process must be understood fully by both voters and solution providers.
Solution Provider Proposition Requirements List
From current and past discussion by members of the TF Community, we produced a list of requirements that a solution provider should answer to. The goal of this list is to generate sufficient information for each member to vote for the solution with total transparency and understanding.
- What are the terms and conditions?
- This also implies the liability conditions
- What is the support provided for the solution?
- Is support provided by TF or by the solution provider
- If users need help, where do they go to?
- What are the steps for a user to get answers
- Is the solution open or closed source?
- Also, is the solution client-based? (e.g. data stays within the browser)
- What will be the marketing provided with the solution?
- What is the percentage (up to 50%) of the revenue wanted for the solution?
- What are the arguments justifying x% of the revenue wanted
- Solution provider can offer (non-exhaustive enumeration)
- marketing strategy and implementation
- effective and developed support
- innovative product never seen before
- upgrade on existing products
- Solution provider can offer (non-exhaustive enumeration)
- What are the arguments justifying x% of the revenue wanted
The list will most surely evolve and change as we discuss further. As we learn, we grow.
Clarity in Both Format: Smart Contract Version and Written Proposition Version
The solution provider proposal is written as a smart contract on the TFGrid. For ease of communication and maximum clarity and accessibility, every information within the smart contract should be clearly stated in the written form of the solution provider, i.e. the solution provider proposition post on the TF Forum.
This makes sure that farmers vote knowing exactly what they are voting for!
DAO Voting: In-Depth Understanding
The concept of solution providers is closely linked to the concept of the TF DAO since the DAO is the entity managing the votes and overall organization of the solution provider program.
We need to define clearly the voting procedure as well as the overall decision-making procedures.
DAO Voting: How Voting Works
Voters and solution providers alike should understand fully the DAO voting procedure. Clear documentation on the minimum threshold of a vote, as well as the weight of voting, should be produced and distributed with each solution proposed.
DAO Voting: Decision-Making Procedures
There are many possible ways to organize the DAO voting procedure for solution providers. We need to define what are the possible combinations and executions of the DAO.
A solution can be proposed, it can also be removed. A solution can be amended. A solution can be put on hold. A solution can be upgraded or downgraded (e.g. the % of revenue can be changed for some given reasons). In all those cases, a clear DAO vote will be needed to assure with confidente a trustworthy vote, in the eyes of the community itself and all its members.
DAO Voting: Voting Periods
We should set clear voting periods for the solution providers’ proposals. For example, a period of 30 days could be sufficient to allow each farmer to familiarise themselves with the solution provider’s proposal and to cast an informed vote. This point could be discussed further.
Conclusion
This document is a work in progress and it shall evolve as the TF community consciously develop and expand the concept of both the TF DAO and the solution provider program.
With clear communication and an honest desire to do good for the whole of the TF ecosystem, this project can only thrive and grow. Let’s talk. But let’s walk too!