Dapp Endorsement Proposal for VeBetterDAO

VeBetterDAO
1

Introduction

This proposal outlines a new governance mechanism for the VeBetterDAO community to collectively approve and endorse decentralized applications (dApps) for integration and funding. By establishing a dedicated voting pool, we can ensure that all new dApps meet our community’s high standards for quality, security, and alignment with our mission. This process will empower token holders and create a transparent, structured pathway for developers.

1. Proposal Objectives

  • Quality Assurance: Ensure that only high-quality, secure dApps that align with VeBetterDAO’s values are endorsed. This prevents the integration of low-quality or “dodgy” applications into our ecosystem.

  • Community Empowerment: Give token holders a direct and meaningful say in which dApps receive official endorsement and subsequent weekly funding.

  • Transparency: Establish a clear, auditable, and accessible process for the submission, evaluation, and endorsement of all new dApps.

  • Ecosystem Growth: Foster innovation by providing a visible and structured pathway for developers to gain community support and funding.

2. Proposed Dapp Endorsement Voting Pool

I propose a new voting pool specifically for dApp endorsements. This pool will operate similarly to our existing governance process but there will be no need for the proposal to ‘look for support’ and it will automatically go for voting. dApps applying still need to go through the regular means, by applying to the foundation, but before a creator NFT can be given. To avoid any confusions between these and the “grant proposals”, these should either have “[NFT Creator proposal]” on their title or another tab/section for these proposals should be created within the VebetterDao platform.

2.1. Submission Process

Any developer or team can submit a new dApp proposal. To be considered, submissions must include:

  • Project Documentation: A detailed whitepaper or documentation outlining the dApp’s purpose, functionality, and technical specifications. This should also include: backend service security measures, anti-farming mechanisms to prevent exploitative behavior, anti-faking protections (e.g., detection of AI-generated or manipulated content) and any other relevant safeguards or innovations that enhance trust,.

  • Roadmap: A clear roadmap for development and future integration with the VeBetterDAO ecosystem.

  • Community Alignment: A statement explaining how the dApp aligns with VeBetterDAO’s mission and core values.

  • Team Information: Contact information and social media links (e.g. X, Discord, etc) for the development team. A project lead should be mentioned with a social handle. Doesn’t have to be real names, but we need an identity behind the dapp. Optionally other team members could also be mentioned.

  • Support Channel: where users can direct feedback / get help from. An X page with no way to contact them outside tagging them on a public post is not enough. They need DMs open at a minimum. Ideally a Discord/Telegram or ticketing system.

  • Testnet Access (optional but recommended): Testnet version of the dApp, allowing community members to explore its features, assess usability, and provide feedback.

Proposals will be submitted through a dedicated portal on the VeBetterDAO platform.

2.2. Voting Structure and Rules

  • Voting Rights: Voting power will be based on the amount of VOT3 held, as determined by the weekly snapshot.

  • Voting Period: Each proposal will be open for a fixed period of 7 days. The dApp must be submitted at least one week before the voting period begins.

  • Voting Options: Token holders will have two distinct choices:

    • Endorse: Approve the dApp for official endorsement and potential funding.

    • Reject: Decline the dApp, indicating it does not meet our standards at the moment and modifications could be required before it can be reconsidered.

  • Approval Threshold: The threshold for approval will be the same as for normal governance proposals.

3. Post-Voting Outcomes

3.1. Endorsed dApps

If a dApp meets the approval threshold, a creator NFT can be given and the dapp will be eligible for endorsement. This endorsement includes:

  • Platform Listing: The dApp will be listed under the “New apps looking for endorsement” tab and featured on VebetterDAO platform. And information that was submitted during 2.1. Submission Process should be included in their dapp information page on the VebetterDao platform.

  • Funding Access: The dApp becomes eligible to receive node endorsement and subsequent weekly funding (subject to separate governance approval).

  • Ecosystem Support: The project will receive official marketing and community support from VeBetterDAO.

3.2. Rejected dApps

If a dApp is rejected, the developers cannot get the creator NFT. However the developers will be given a clear timeline (a minimum of 30 days) to revise their proposal based on community feedback. They may resubmit up to a maximum of two times. Feedback can be provided via the comments section on VebetterDAO. Alternatively, developers may request a Spaces session on X to discuss feedback and seek clarification.

4. Conclusion and Implementation

This new voting pool is a crucial step toward building a more robust, decentralized, and community-driven ecosystem. It formalizes our commitment to quality, empowers our token holders, and provides a clear, fair process for developers. We recommend that this proposal be implemented as soon as technically feasible.

I’m open to discussion and new ideas. This proposal follows the endorsement of VedreamHome, which in my opinion does not align with the core values of VebetterDAO (like PawsUp, and other dapps). I believe this raises concerns about the integrity of the endorsement process. If we don’t address this, nodes may begin endorsing any dApp purely for profit, without considering its actual quality.

7 Likes
2

Great work, @MonkeyDCrypto. This is a great idea. We have seen undeserving dApps get given creator NFTs a few times before.

One such instance of a creator NFT being given undeservingly was one user impersonating an entire team of 3-4 people. If it weren’t for the community catching this, the dApp would have been eligible for allocation - and it was, it was fully endorsed by a single node, but thankfully the creator of the dApp realised the gig was up and requested for the NFT to be burned by the foundation.

Clearly, not enough research is being done on these dApps, and not enough requirements are in place before a creator NFT is given. This proposal adds an extra layer of community-driven security, ensuring that only dApps deemed worthy by the community are approved.

If this is to pass, I can foresee some possible confusion within some community members who may see these submissions as grant proposals, so it would be important to have a clear distinction between the grant proposals and creator NFT proposals.

@reheat has some notes that he was gathering for a proposal he was planning to submit regarding requiring more information on who’s behind the dApps applying for the NFT, which is a problem in and of itself, which would compliment this proposal very well.

Looking forward to seeing the discussion on this, as well as the iterations that may come out of it.

Thanks for getting the wheel moving, @MonkeyDCrypto!

1 Like
3

I think is a good way to prevent all or at least some of this food and dodgy apps that are in the DAO just for farm B3tr

1 Like
4

This is a good one - I will look to come back, re-read and reply again. For now, I am fully on board with this attempt to make the DAO appear less ‘trashy’ and more aligned with original DAO intent.

The proposal should help drive engagement with the community well before any Dapp makes it to the DAO - which, might I add, is only in the best interest of the Dapp itself… no Dapp should fear engagement and scrutiny from those it wishes to serve, the community.

I welcome this attempt at plugging the cracks that allow some Dapps slipping through into view where they should not. ‘Sneaking’ on to the DAO… not a great look.

2 Likes
5

Havent forgotten about this! I want to add some additional things. Will do asap, been a busy week.

Great work so far @MonkeyDCrypto

2 Likes
6

during the submission i think a publically available Testnet version of the dapp should be available for people to “try out”, and make their own minds on the quality, usability of it.

For detailed technical specification, id like to see it contain details around:

  • anti-farming
  • anti-faking (e.g. what if users submit fake or ai generated photos, or duplicate photos)
  • how their BE services are secured
    etc.
2 Likes
8

Those are all great ideas, I am adding them to the proposal. Thanks :saluting_face:

9

Wish I had made the time to read this sooner. I fully support this and we need it up ASAP.

Today with the new dApp B3TR Smile becoming eligible for endorsement has clearly shown the foundation or which ever employee that is responsible for handing out Creator NFT’s is not fit to act as the QA for the DAO. It is time to hand the keys over to the community. Maybe my words are harsh but they should think about what absolute dross they are allowing on.

Regarding this proposal, I would echo @Plunk ‘s comment that it will be important to emphasise the distinctions between types of proposals.

I wonder if we need three voting options? Since both Reject and Request Revisions allow for the same result, only one being it must be done within 30 days. May be best to combine the two and say if no revisions are made within 30 days then the whole idea is rejected and cannot be submitted again.

4 Likes
10

Initially, I proposed three voting options for the Dapp Validation Voting Pool, similar to standard proposals, but replacing “abstain” with “still needs work” to provide constructive feedback. I appreciate your suggestion to simplify voting to a binary “yes” or “no” for clarity and decisiveness. However, I’m concerned about the 30-day resubmission cycle for Dapps marked as needing work. Should there be a limit on how many times a Dapp can be resubmitted to prevent repetitive or low-quality proposals from clogging the voting pool?

To address potential confusion with grant proposals and creator NFT proposals, I suggest using distinct prefixes in proposal titles as it happens already for the grants “[Grant Proposal]…”, something like “[NFT Creator Proposal]…”. Do you think this would clear any confusion?

11

The “Request Revisions” could still work as long as it there is a minimum character requirement and/or future B3M0 check on if there is actual feedback. Otherwise it doesn’t suit its purpose. Ultimately I can live with either version, we need to get this up for voting ASAP.

We have seen when the grant proposals first started appearing on the DAO that the prefix [Grant Proposal] still led to confusion, but at the very least what you suggested must be there. Ideally the Governance page’s UI on the DAO should be revamped to better differenciate between the types of proposals, but that would have to be a separate proposal.

1 Like
12

Thanks for the feedback, I’ve just added those suggestions :+1:

For now I’m just waiting for @reheat suggestions before submitting, since I understand that this proposal is very important..

2 Likes
13

Hey. Great work with this again @MonkeyDCrypto

Sorry for taking so long to get back on this - but I think it’s good. More time for it to be talked about on other places (vebetterdao community discord server for example).

What I’ve wanted to really dig into is getting meta information up on these dApps. I had a draft up for a proposal that required dapps to (on their dapp page on governance.vebetterdao.org) list the following:

  • Social channel (X, medium, bluesky, whatever) to post announcements from
  • A project lead with a social handle. Doesn’t have to be real names, but we need an identity behind the dapp.
    • Optionally other team members in the same way (some teams hire a dev for parts of the dapp etc, might not need to list that if not permanent)
  • A support channel where users can direct feedback / get help from. An X page with no way to contact them outside tagging them on a public post is not enough. They need DMs open at a minimum. Ideally a Discord/Telegram or ticketing system.

You have some of this as a requirement to get listed, so I just wanted to add this as well. We should update the proposal to have the above as a requirement for the “dapp endorsement proposal”, but that it should also be a requirement to have that information on their dapp page and updated as things change, for months down the line after they’ve been endorsed.

In that proposal I had also drafted in a required “quarterly” report that needs to go on their dapp page about a) where the dapp is at and b) where it’s going (in terms of getting revenue/users), but I feel that it’s a bit out of scope as an addition to this proposal, so we can likely skip that for now.

About your specific proposal. Some questions/thoughts

  • Should voting on these proposals be rewarded in the same voter rewards formula?
    • My instant feeling is NO, but at the same time voter rewards were added to dApps and other proposals for a reason.
  • If we do the quality control at this level, the endorsement layer (nodes endorsing with points) feels a bit ‘redundant’ and mostly serve as a rewards stream for node holders more than an actual mark of quality control on dApps.
    • I know removing endorsements is a difficult topic - but if this proposal is implemented, it kind of feels like it’s the start of the ‘proper’ endorsement, and the actual endorsement is just a thing for node holders to profit off (with dapps offering 10-20% endorsement rewards, multipliers etc.)… Maybe there’s a world where this proposal could merge with the endorsement system we have?
    • This is too large to process right now, and I think this proposal is a good start to maybe get there later, but it’s just been on my mind a bit.
  • Should we base voting power on these proposals based on snapshot VOT3 with or without accounting for the locked VOT3 in support of ‘normal’ proposals? As of recently, dApps voting uses 100% of your vot3s, regardless if they were used in proposal support or not. Do we want the same for this one as it’s dApps focused rather than VBD focused (like other proposals)?
    • My gut feeling is yes - use 100% of vot3s, even if they were used in support of dApps. Something to discuss.
  • I see some risks with the proposal. Mostly that very few people care enough about this to do the proper vetting. If the dApp writes a half-decent proposal, I don’t think too many people will do the due diligence of actually testing it on testnet, testing it for exploits etc. From what I’ve seen, people mostly just do that for one of two reasons:
    • To get rewards on mainnet later
    • If the dApp is from an established team (most recently the B3DTIME tests that are going well)
  • Obviously I want this to work, but I worry that it will just be a thing people ignore (leaving us with a centralized group of people calling the shots on dApps getting in (maybe not a bad thing if they’re serious about it?), or people just voting for whatever based on a gut feeling. Is there something we can do to reduce that risk perhaps?

I think that’s it for now, I’ll update if I can think of more later. I think we need to let this proposal go around on spaces a little bit to spread awareness on it (in order to get support) and to see if there’s more that can be added.

Thanks again @MonkeyDCrypto for getting the ball rolling!

1 Like
14

I first off want to say I love the work you’ve done and I respect the time and effort you put in to think about these issues. I want to echo some of what Reheat has said. I think getting people to use TestNet and stress test the dApps will be tough and puts more work on the Node holders if we are making it a requirement for them to handle. It is hard enough to get all the Node holders engaged in the ecosystem adding more work might push people away. Unless there was an incentive that will make them feel rewarded enough to do the work.

I do want to be careful what we decide is a good dApp and what isn’t. There are different types of cultures and different types of ways people view sustainability. Some ideas might seem stupid to one person and to others it might seem amazing. The idea of the DAO is to have a wide variety of dApps and people vote for what they enjoy. I think the real problem with the DAO is finding the bad actors.

I think auditing the capacity of the team and the dApp is a great way to hopefully help with that. If we want that then the DAO will have to find a trusted team that is unbiased to perform these stress tests and the DAO will have to find a fair market value to pay them. Also, the tricky part is figuring out who decides who these people are and who decides who to trust. This whole thing could be a full time job for a few people as the DAO grows. But, I truly do think finding the bad actors and getting them off the DAO is the main goal and we have to be careful not to make it about what is the idea behind the dApp. You never know what people will love and not.

2 Likes
15

Thank you, Reheat, for your insightful and well-structured feedback. I’ve updated the proposal with additional details addressing the first points you raised. Additionally, based on @chudnufski
suggestion, I’ve made the testnet optional but recommended to lower the barrier for developers applying to VeBetterDAO.

Regarding the 2nd part of your comment, I will need some time to have to think about it.. Those are really good points you have mentioned there and I hadn’t considered them.

16

Okay…. I’m finally chiming in here. Sorry for my lateness.

I really love the idea of this proposal because it is something I feel very passionate about. But I tend to agree with @chudnufski on the responsibilities that will be added to the community.

I know there are a bunch of us for whom this matters a lot, but is that enough? Especially during the beginning stages? We will need a group of trusted testers, a group of people who vet these teams beforehand. That’s not easy work, and we all know the main test is when the dapps go to mainnet.

This might have been mentioned on Discord, but what if we tried a different approach? We can still require the documentation in this proposal to receive the creator ntf, but what if we nix the votes and just do a trial for every new dapp? X weeks to show the community how you work. We will see how they handle farmers, how they communicate to the community, and how functional the dapp is. That within itself will be a testing ground for the dapp, and with a very wide group of testers. We can voice our concerns as they start, and there will be a vote at x time. This adds pressure for them to do better.

I’m not sure what the penalty would be if they are voted to be unsatisfactory, but this would also show endorsers what dapps not to endorse when their endorsement points get removed from them, if that’s part of it.

I know there’s also been some chatter about a committee of folks who get voted in to handle such matters, but I lean more on the community as a whole vs just a few.

17

If this was in place for new Dapps, the same way should be applied to all existing Dapp that made their way before, otherwise this would be creating another unfair barrier to join the DAO.

18

Great proposal — it effectively decentralizes the process of issuing Creator NFTs, which is a meaningful step forward.

Most of this information (team contact, project lead, social channels, etc.) is already collected by the Foundation during the current grant approval process. Integrating these requirements directly into the dApp endorsement proposal makes sense and aligns with existing due diligence practices.

On the voting side — I think the concerns from @reheat about participation are valid. From previous quorum analysis, most chain/DAO keep quorum thresholds quite low, since the majority of voters tend to be project contributors and engaged community members. Therefore, it’s realistic to keep this proposal un-rewarded while lowering quorum, ensuring decisions remain legitimate without incentivizing low-quality or mechanical voting.

1 Like
19

Unfortunately, there is currently no mechanism to control or remove dApps that are already part of the VebetterDAO unless a formal proposal is submitted and approved. This is similar to how new laws in a country typically apply moving forward and cannot retroactively affect individuals/entities that were already operating under previous regulations. I still think this would be nice addition to the DAO and make it more decentralized.

20

Thank you for the comment, actually I have been lately thinking along with @BreakingBallz and we’re considering making this voting pool accessible only to wallets that have upgraded their GM NFTs (level Moon or higher). The reasoning behind this is that those who invested in upgrading their NFT have demonstrated a financial commitment to the ecosystem, and therefore they are more likely to care deeply about which dApps are admitted into VebetterDAO. This would also give more utility to the GM NFTs. Maybe rewarding could come on later stage, but for now keep un-rewarded would be the best approach (rewards later if necessary). We have also talked about a trial period (1 month) where people could use/test the dapp before the voting. I’d really appreciate any feedback or thoughts on this approach!

21

I’ve been thinking about this prosposal for a long time now and have come to the decision that it won’t help us much. I’m afraid that there are too many people who just blindly click on “Vote for” because they hope to earn more and more B3TR. And once the dapp is in the dao, it will be hard to get rid of it.

But since the basic idea of this prosposal is a good one, I had the idea to introduce a trial period for developers and their dapps. We would have to discuss the length of the trial period, whether it should last 1, 3 or 6 months. During the trial period, which starts on the day of endorsement, everyone can test the dapp, see how much allocation they distribute, see how the support is etc. etc. At the end of the trial period, there will then be a community query as to whether the creator NFT can continue to exist or whether it will be burned. I had ChatGPT write my arguments for a trial period a bit nicer. Please let me know what you think.

Reasons to Implement a Trial Period for Dapps

  1. Quality Assurance

Proof of real functionality:
The Dapp can demonstrate that it works reliably in a live environment and fulfills its intended purpose.

Filtering out hype projects:
Many projects launch with big promises but fail to deliver. A trial period helps filter out short-lived or low-quality Dapps early.

  1. Community & Security Protection

Reducing scam risks (Rug Pull prevention):
The crypto space has many fraudulent projects. A trial period forces teams to remain active and accountable instead of disappearing after a quick profit.

Technical and security audits:
The community and independent auditors have time to review smart contracts, security measures, and governance mechanisms before full integration.

  1. Stronger Support and Responsiveness

Testing team responsiveness:
During the trial period, it becomes clear how quickly and effectively the team responds to bugs, issues, and user questions.

Building trust:
Consistent, transparent communication shows that the team is serious about long-term success.

  1. Encouraging Community Engagement

Early feedback loop:
The trial period gives the community a chance to provide valuable feedback, helping the Dapp improve before full launch.

Decentralized decision-making:
At the end of the trial, token holders can vote on whether the Dapp should stay, ensuring transparency and community participation.

  1. Promoting Sustainability Over Short-Term Gains

Focusing on long-term vision:
Teams looking for a quick cash grab will not commit to the effort needed to pass a trial phase.

Rewarding commitment:
Successfully completing the trial proves dedication and earns stronger support from the DAO, such as funding or governance privileges.

  1. Improving the DAO’s Reputation

External credibility:
A clear vetting process signals to potential partners, investors, and users that the DAO prioritizes security and quality.

Avoiding inactive or abandoned Dapps:
The ecosystem remains healthy and active instead of being cluttered with dead or unmaintained projects.