VeBetterDAO: Establishing a Community-Driven dApp Endorsement & Lifecycle Process

VeBetterDAO
1

Summary

This proposal seeks to implement a transparent, community-driven dApp endorsement system within VeBetterDAO. The proposed process will remove centralized approvals, enforce mandatory disclosure requirements, introduce a refundable deposit system to deter spam, and establish an endorsement-based lifecycle to ensure only impactful projects continue receiving funding.

Motivation

Currently, a “creator NFT” is required for dApps to submit for endorsement, which is a centralized approval process. This proposal aims to :

  • Increase transparency by requiring developers to disclose key project details.
  • Empower the community to endorse projects without centralized gatekeeping.
  • Prevent spam and fraudulent applications by introducing a refundable deposit mechanism.
  • Ensure continuous quality control by requiring dApps to maintain endorsements over time.

Specification & Implementation

1. dApp Submission Process

  • Developers submit an application with the following required disclosures:
    • Team Information: Public profiles or verifiable credentials.
    • dApp Purpose & Usage: A clear explanation of the dApp’s functionality.
    • SDG and X2Earn Alignment: How the dApp contributes to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), with measurable impact. How the dApp aligns with the principles outlined in the VBD white paper.
    • Token Allocation Plan: How the weekly received tokens will be used/rewarded.
    • Compensation Plan detailing all potential forms of developer compensation, both direct and indirect.
    • Anti-Bot and Anti-Farm considerations.
    • Testnet Availability: Whether the dApp is available for testing.
    • Security Audit Status: Whether the dApp has undergone a security audit.
  • Developers pay a refundable deposit to submit their application.
  • The application is publicly displayed on VeBetterDAO for 14 days.

2. Community Review & Endorsement

  • Community members review and endorse dApps based on transparency, feasibility, and SDG impact.
  • If a dApp meets the endorsement threshold within 14 days, it is approved and enters VeBetterDAO.
  • If a dApp fails to get enough endorsements, the application is rejected, and the deposit is refunded.
  • Spam or fraudulent applications are flagged, resulting in forfeiture of the deposit, which will be transferred to the VeBetterDAO Treasury.

3. Active dApp Lifecycle & Ongoing Endorsements

  • Approved dApps start receiving weekly token allocations.
  • dApps must maintain a minimum number of endorsements to remain in the DAO.
  • If endorsements drop below the threshold, the dApp enters a 2-week grace period to recover support.
  • If endorsements are regained, the dApp continues receiving allocations.
  • If endorsements are not regained, the dApp is removed from the DAO, and funding stops.
  • Developers can reapply, but they must submit a new deposit and go through the review process again.

Governance & Enforcement

  • Community moderators and governance mechanisms will handle spam detection and appeals.
  • Spam markings require clear justification and can be challenged via community vote.
  • A DAO vote may adjust endorsement thresholds, deposit amounts, and grace period rules based on performance data.

Phased Implementation Approach

Considering the time and effort required to implement this process, it is recommended to roll it out in at least two phases:

Phase 1: Implement Disclosure Requirements

  • Require dApps to provide detailed disclosures when submitting for endorsement.
  • This will allow the community to review more comprehensive information before deciding whether to endorse a dApp.
  • Ensures transparency and better decision-making from the outset.

Phase 2: Implement dApp Lifecycle

  • Introduce the endorsement-based lifecycle, where dApps must maintain endorsements to continue receiving allocations.
  • Implement the 2-week grace period for dApps that fall below the endorsement threshold.
  • Final execution of this phase will be subject to feedback from the development team regarding feasibility and technical requirements.

Conclusion

This proposal shifts VeBetterDAO towards a fully community-driven model while maintaining quality control and transparency. The endorsement-based lifecycle ensures that only valuable, impactful dApps continue receiving funding, and the refundable deposit system prevents spam without deterring serious developers.

Please feel free to share your opinion and help make the proposal actionable!

2 Likes
3

This is going to be addressing quality issues of X2E apps from the beginning.

2 Likes
4

The dApp submission process should require a comprehensive compensation plan detailing all potential forms of developer compensation, both direct and indirect.

Direct compensation follows a straightforward give-and-take model. Examples include:

  • Claiming a percentage of the weekly allocation.
  • Selling a physical smart plug device.
  • Selling or incentivizing the purchase of an NFT.
  • Generating revenue through ads, fees, or commissions.

Indirect compensation is more complex and often harder to identify, as it involves a give-give-give relationship within a triangular or circular structure.

Example 1: X2E dApp Z requires users to own a third-party NFT and receives kickbacks from that third party. This means users spend VET to buy the third-party NFT, and the third party shares a portion of that VET with Z.

Example 2: X2E dApp X offers a reward multiplier for users who voted for X in the previous round. This results in X rewarding users more, users voting for X with more VOT3, and VBD granting X a higher allocation, creating a reinforcing loop of incentives.

Requiring the detailed compensation plan in the application disclosures enhances transparency, helps prevent fraud, and allows the community to better assess a dApp’s sustainability and success potential.

Additionally, it would make sense for these disclosures to remain visible indefinitely rather than be limited to 14 days. Developers should also be able to update them later, with any modifications triggering another round of community review.

1 Like
5

Good idea, I will incorporate as part of the disclosure process.

I think it’s OK if a developer does not have a plan yet, but these legitimate questions will provoke thinking and help shape better dApp qualities.