###### tags: `leapdao`

# Funding Request Policy v1
**in:** [General Circle](https://app.glassfrog.com/organizations/14849/orgnav/roles/10883348), **Domain:** [MultiSig funds](https://app.glassfrog.com/organizations/14849/orgnav/roles/10883348/domains/11780603)

Once a funding proposal is properly accepted by the team, Keybearers must sign it out.
* Funding proposals are defined as per [template](https://github.com/leapdao/meta/blob/master/Template%20-%20Project%20Funding%20Proposal.md)
* All proposals are subject to the relevant proposal/waiting/voting periods

## Holacracy - v1
simple agreement via holacracy constitution standard, no objection means *proposal is accepted*, according to waiting periods:

LeapDAO is a distributed team, working in a asynchronous style. Team Members need time to check proposals & make a decision **for** or **against**.

### Proposal Week:
Proposals are presented towards the **General Circle**, which has a fix scheduled Governance & Tactical Call every week.

This call is the place to present the proposal & answer first questions, gain feedback.

### Waiting period:
The proposal is submitted via pull request to **the "Funding Requests" folder** within the **LeapDAO meta-repository** to document efforts.

Additionally, the proposal should be visible for everyone in Slack channels.

Until the next Governance & Tactical Call, comments can be placed & improvements included.

### Following Week:
The waiting period has passed when the **General Circle** is opening his next Governance & Tactical Call.

The proposer gets a last chance to present improvements or answer to comments. If no further objections or comments are raised, the proposal will pass.

___

## BackUp
### Voting - v2
voting via governance contract, designed via GovBricks Proposal by Deora - **parameters tbd**

### Funding Process Spec - incl. questions
1. Retrospective, Motivation, Purpose
2. People, Roles and estimated Budget
3. Contribution, Roadmap & Fund allocation
4. Conclusion, Alignment with LeapDAO

> examples:
[Nervos Funding Request](https://hackmd.io/781cenAXTN-eerSGpufWjg)
> [Example Ecosystem Circle](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PJq1P2-zzCphRlpb3LvcX0IuZp5XUoRwAIxQKW5S9aM/edit)

### Reputation
Workers already busy doing bounties for LeapDAO have accumulated a certain amount of Colony Reputation along with Leap Tokens. We could think of a threshold which signals a sufficient contribution. Passing this threshold qualifies for proposing requests & voting on requests.

#### According to [Token Policy:](https://app.glassfrog.com/organizations/14849/orgnav/policies/12104228)
> "1.5% of the Leap token holdings of the general circle multisig are to be distributed monthly to the team according to colony reputation"

### Voting
Deora is currently working on a proposal to get funding for the "Gov-Bricks/Habitat Project". This proposal will enable a layer2 voting architecture to process governance via ERC20 Token.

White Rabbit initiated this governance project, thanks to a SAFT agreement which includes a "Token Governance Launch".

Voting needs a separate, extensive evaluation.

Deora, engaged in decentralised voting & governance experiments recently connected with Pinkiebell to lift voting on Layer2. If funding is accepted, this process is a prime example for initiatives & efforts deriving from Leap Networks own small ecosystem.

### Community Fund

As LeapDAO Meta-Crew is currently iterating further towards a working "Community Fund".
The fund will replace the General-Circle Multi-Sig & offer more features. The v1 policy as stated above, also applies to the Community Fund, until a v2 is finished with voting in place.