[Secondary Proposal] API3 Ecosystem Proposal Cycle 4 - Jun-Aug 2023

Destination: Gnosis Safe (Multi-sig Wallet)



Ben - 0x579D7a028634b9d95f3382AC2A20C9F5Bcc99976

Ashar - 0xf57B7C0025444c069dBfE12417729f22A13a399b

Vansh - 0xbAE697Bc7433E214eECf2816E5D74f2C6FCb4484

Hello everyone, this proposal is going to be a little different from the usual format and tone and I’d like to start off with a bit of history for the new members who are going to be joining the proposal.

To give some context for those who aren’t familiar with who I am, I’ve been a part of API3 for about 2 years now. Initially, I was part of the core technical team where I helped in writing and reviewing some of the earlier protocol contracts. Fast forward two years and I have been bouncing around teams, working on different aspects of the DAO ranging from QRNG, OEV , dAPIs, and airnode. I have also been actively involved in developer advocacy and business development efforts in this time frame. While I don’t claim to be an expert in any one of these areas I do think that has allowed me to bridge the gap of understanding between the technical,non-technical members of the DAO.

Ben on the other hand was initially part of the Marketing Proposal and was focused on partner marketing, but realized that bettering the developer experience was crucial given our target audience. He was one of the earliest members within the DAO that approached me in regards to bettering developer advocacy efforts. Noticing a lack of focus on developer-related activities, he made the decision to spin off a new proposal that would deliver this, as well as consider how we align with chain partners on developer activities. This is how the ecosystem proposal came to be.


Vansh was initially part of the Integrations team for well over a year and decided to move over to the ecosystem team because of his experience and expertise in both airnode and interacting with clients that use airnode. This made him the ideal person to write tutorials and guides on how to use and interact with airnode from the perspective of a user. He has been instrumental in delivering developer content across chain partners and I don’t think we would have the outreach we currently have without his efforts.

With a team in place, we set out to solve the problem that was outlined by Ben in the first ecosystem proposal. I think we have taken major strides by developing essential content for developers, organizing informative workshops, and working closely with our chain partners to get this message to the right people. However, there is still ample work to be done as we continue to strive towards our goals, particulary in unlocking the cyclical growth effect from user/community engagement into demand generation.

Seeing the growth of API3 in these two years from just being a vision that aims to solve the “Oracle problem” to it being actualized and taking shape has been quite the journey. In the process, we also found new and innovative solutions to problems like OEV (courtesy of dogebull) and showed how easy it can be to have a randomness source across multiple chains via QRNG. Finally, the promise of dAPIs isn’t far and self-funded feeds on zkEVM have already proven the robustness and reliability of airnode as an oracle node, kudos to the dAPI & UX team for their continuous and tireless efforts.

I would like to express my appreciation to the Business Development team, with whom I have been closely collaborating on the integration of dAPPS to use self-funded dAPIs. Their efforts have been instrumental in converting the relationships we have established with dAPPs on chains such as Polygon zkEVM and Arbitrum to API3 data feed users.

Self-funded and the road to managed dAPIs

Last cycle, we launched self-funded dAPIs with all our chain partners. The ecosystem team saw an opportunity to raise awareness about these dAPIs and used our relationships with our partners to do so. In particular, self-funded dAPIs have been widely adopted in Polygon zkEVM’s ecosystem. We will continue to work with their DeFi team to ensure that every dApp that requires an oracle can easily access it through Adapters, a backup oracle setup, or by reading it directly through the proxy.

With a growing TVS that continues to go up with every new dAPP we are working on solutions to make sure that these dAPPs can migrate to managed feeds without any friction. As such we will be shifting our focus towards working more closely with chain partners to ensure that the dAPPs on their chain have access to critical oracle infrastructure at all times.

Developer Experience

One of the goals of the last cycle was to make sure we have dAPI tutorials in all partner docs. Courtesy of vansh we are now currently featured in:

We are also working with zkSync and optimism to be included in their docs at a future date.

In addition to the above, we also supported QRNG users on Arbitrum before the launch of dAPIs by helping them integrate with Quintessence’s QRNG airnode on Arbitrum Nova and mainnet.

Creating feedback loops is generally a good starting point if looking to improve an experience. We generally need to bolster community efforts with an emphasis on developers and building in feedback mechanics would be a value add. Additionally, we look at feedback opportunities in the docs and drive accordingly.

We’ve been working on bounty processes for a while now, and we got to test them out at the EthZurich hackathon where we offered a $2k prize for the winner. We learned a lot from that experience and we’re ready to take our efforts to future hackathons like EthPrague and EthGlobal. The Ecosystem team has set up a gnosis safe that will house tokens for bounty awards around a 3/8 mutli-sig involving the hot wallet signers and the ecosystem wallet signers.

Ecosystem Growth

Strong comms underpins successful ecosystem marketing and there has been a great deal of work around this for the Phase 1 rollout with Phase 2 already planned. Light activity will start with data providers in the coming weeks and this will flip to chains post the deployment.

Relationships with network partners are strong but stretched thin overall. Those listed above generally reflect positive relations, but more can be done in that regard and scaling to additional chains requires additional support for partner relationships and alignement. There will be more concentrated efforts here to form a rollout strategy with chains that want to support API3 DAO’s operational overheads.

Partner Marketing & Community Building will be able to begin operating with greater freedom thanks to brand & communication frameworks being in situ. The collaboration on these activities with a developer relations function will help activity to resonate with potential users. This will have a focus on both external communities (chain discords, developer guilds) and support API3’s community efforts.



Alongside ecosystem & developer marketing there has been support for API3’s general social, content & creative. Working with our Editorial Lead these processes have been established and iterated, seeing improvements in the external outputs. Early efforts to establish a comms framework has seen more consistency in production quality and a drop in review friction, making for social media communications to be freer flowing. This enables ecosystem activity such as the API3 x Arbitrum Community session to be able to happen.

Beyond this, there is a great deal of work to be done. We need to establish a brand collateral kit to reduce the time for creative requests which will likely require a light creative exploration and then the production of a range of assets. The idea is for this to be in a public kit for all to utilize as needed. Once in situ, this should allow for creative attention on activities such as events or campaigns.

The latter part of the paragraph above illudes to another area we would like to see improvements in during the forthcoming cycle. API3 needs to onboard a marketing manager with a strong campaign mindset that can help our comms become more diverse but also proactive through the introduction of brand, product or user-led campaign structures. With the comms & brand framework in place, this should be a free-flowing process that supports the growth objectives of the BD & Ecosystem functions.

New Blood

We have newcomers to the DAO for whom this will be their very first proposal, let me introduce:

Christina, a familiar in the Web3 and DAO sector. With over three years of hands-on experience, Christina has established herself as a go-to marketing and community specialist within the ever-evolving world of Web3. In her spare time, she’s the driving force behind the burgeoning project, ETHTallinn.

Next, let’s introduce Billy, a crypto veteran who has been deeply involved in the space since 2017. Billy’s passion for innovation led him to working with smart contracts since 2021, and to discovering API3 while on the hunt for an oracle that could support Gnosis Chain. With a primary stack that includes Hardhat/Foundry, Next.js, Wagmi, and Rainbow Kit, Billy has deployed several production projects on multiple chains using QRNG. Beyond his tech accomplishments, he is also a dedicated community manager for the Developer DAO, where he interacts with a variety of protocols and teams. An avid learner, Billy loves participating in hackathons and exploring new tools in his field.

Finally, we have Burooj, a multi-talented professional who has demonstrated impressive capabilities in both creative and development roles. He was instrumental in bringing the Quantumons demo project and other QRNG demo frontends to life. Currently, he’s applying his wide range of skills to the development of a new ecosystem website. His unique ability to blend the creative and technical realms makes him my goto for any creative needs.

We also have Greg and Can moving over from the copywriting and communications proposal respectively. Welcome to the team bois

Ecosystem Budget

Recipient Amount Months Total Position
Ashar 9800 3 29400 Solutions Lead
Ben 6000 3 18000 Ecosystem Growth & Marketing Lead
Vansh 4000 3 12000 Developer Relations Engineer
Billy 5500 3 16500 Developer Advocate
Burooj 3000 3 9000 Front-end developer, creative support
Christina 4200 3 12600 Ecosystem and Community Manager
Can (pt) 3000 3 9000 Design Support
Greg (pt) 3584 3 10752 Editorial & Content Lead
Grants Total 106500
Team resources
Social media & brand collateral 15000 Branded social media kit - creative process with production of brand assets
Ad-hoc creative 10000 Ad-hoc creative requirements
Ad-hoc developer activity 10000 Potential activites with DevDAO, ThirdWeb, AWS etc. Support for EthPrague if needed.
Contractual Work 6000 Development of ecosystem.api3.org and supprt with dAPPs/chain partner projects
Bunch 9000 Community Moderation
Team Travel & Logisitics 10000 Event Travel & Expenses as per additional proposal
Tooling 2000 Team tooling x3 months
PR 5000
Merch 2000
Overall 156500
10% flex 15650 Marketing hires
Total 172150

Additionally we want to populate a bounty hot wallet outlined above. Within this proposal we would also like to request 25000 API3 to the wallet outlined below from the API3 Hot Wallet. This is for use within API3 bounty challenges and contributor rewards. We expect this to cover a range of developer-oriented activity such as hackathon bounties, contributor bounties and retrospective bounties for the coming cycle and most likely through to the end of 2023.


Thank you for sharing your proposal with the API3 community. As a community member and stakeholder, I appreciate your efforts in putting together this proposal. Upon careful analysis and consideration, I would like to highlight several concerns that need to be addressed to ensure the success and effectiveness of the proposed initiatives.

I believe it would be valuable to delve deeper into certain key areas listed below. I believe recent alternate perspectives and potential counterarguments should be given more thought. Addressing potential drawbacks and addressing them head-on demonstrates a comprehensive approach and a willingness to consider differing viewpoints.

I would encourage you to consider engaging with the community further to gather additional insights and perspectives. This collaborative approach can foster a robust and well-informed approach to discussion, ultimately leading to a stronger proposal for the API3DAO.

I want to emphasize that I recognize your intention to contribute and your efforts in bringing attention to important matters. By addressing the mentioned areas below, I believe your proposal has the potential to evolve into a more comprehensive and compelling document that will resonate with the broader audience.

Let’s jump right in:

  1. Lack of Specific Metrics:
    While your proposal outlines various goals and objectives, it lacks the inclusion of specific metrics to measure the progress and success of these initiatives. It is crucial to establish clear and measurable KPIs that will enable us to track the impact of our efforts and assess the effectiveness of the proposed strategies.

For example, the proposal mentions developer adoption as one of the goals. However, it would be beneficial to define what constitutes successful developer adoption. Is it the number of developers actively building on the API3 platform? Or is it the number of applications deployed using API3’s oracle solutions? By specifying the desired outcomes and setting measurable targets, the audience can better understand the project’s trajectory and assess its success in attracting and retaining developers.

Similarly, the proposal mentions community engagement as a focus area. But how would the project measure and evaluate community engagement? Is it through the number of active community members, the level of participation in community events, or the amount of user-generated content? By defining specific engagement metrics, the proposal can demonstrate how the project aims to foster an active and vibrant community and track its progress in achieving that goal.

Furthermore, the integration of dAPPs is mentioned as a priority. However, without specific metrics, it is challenging to gauge the level of integration or adoption the project aims to achieve. Metrics such as the number of dAPPs integrated, the transaction volume generated through these integrations, or the user base of these dAPPs could provide valuable insights into the project’s success in expanding its ecosystem.

In summary, incorporating specific metrics in the proposal would not only provide clarity on the project’s objectives but also enable stakeholders to assess the progress and impact of the proposed ecosystem initiatives. Defining measurable targets related to developer adoption, community engagement, and dAPP integration would demonstrate the project’s commitment to growth and facilitate transparent reporting on the project’s performance.

  1. Limited Explanation of Deliverables:
    The proposal lacks a comprehensive breakdown of the deliverables associated with each initiative. It is essential to provide a detailed outline of the tasks, timelines, and resources required for successful implementation. This level of clarity will help the community better understand the scope of work involved and ensure that expectations are aligned.

For example, the proposal mentions the development of essential content for developers and informative workshops. However, it would be helpful to specify the topics to be covered in these workshops, the number of workshops planned, and the expected number of participants. This level of detail would provide voters with a clearer picture of the educational impact and outreach efforts that will be undertaken.

Furthermore, the proposal highlights the importance of working closely with chain partners to ensure access to critical oracle infrastructure for dAPPs. To enhance clarity, the proposal could outline specific partnerships or collaborations that will be pursued, along with the expected outcomes or integrations with these partners. This would enable interested parties to assess the project’s progress in establishing partnerships and expanding its ecosystem.

Additionally, the proposal mentions the support for users on Arbitrum and the development of a new ecosystem website. However, more details regarding the specific features and functionality of the website, as well as the timeline for its development, would provide a clearer understanding of the project’s deliverables and progress.

In summary, providing a more comprehensive explanation of deliverables in the proposal would enhance transparency and enable parties to evaluate the tangible outcomes and impact of the proposed ecosystem initiatives. Clear and specific deliverables, outlined in a SMART framework, would provide a roadmap for the project’s activities and facilitate a more comprehensive assessment of its progress and success.

  1. Unclear Budget Justification:
    The financial aspect of the proposal requires further clarification. It is crucial to provide a detailed breakdown of the budget allocation, outlining the specific costs associated with each initiative. This will help the community understand the rationale behind the proposed budget and ensure transparency in resource allocation.

For example, the proposal mentions a budget allocation for social media and brand creatives. To provide clearer justification, the proposal could outline specific social media strategies and branding initiatives that will be pursued, along with the expected outcomes or metrics for success. This would aid in understanding the importance of these activities and their role in driving ecosystem growth.

Similarly, the proposal mentions contractual work for the development of the ecosystem website and support for dAPPs/chain partner projects. To enhance clarity, the proposal could provide a breakdown of the anticipated costs associated with these activities, such as development resources, hosting fees, or integration expenses. Justifying these budget items with specific project requirements and expected outcomes would offer the community a clearer understanding of the financial resources required for successful implementation.

Furthermore, the proposal includes budget allocations for ad-hoc creative, ad-hoc developer activity, and team travel & logistics. Providing more detailed explanations for these budget items, such as specific events, hackathons, or community engagement initiatives that will be supported, would help DAO members assess the relevance and necessity of these expenditures.

In summary, offering a more detailed budget justification would enhance transparency and allow voters to evaluate the rationale behind the allocated funds for the ecosystem initiatives. Clear explanations of how each budget item contributes to the project’s objectives and expected outcomes would provide a better understanding of the financial resources needed and their alignment with the project’s strategic goals.

  1. Lack of Risk Assessment:
    The proposal does not adequately address the potential risks and challenges associated with the proposed initiatives. It is essential to conduct a thorough risk assessment, identifying potential obstacles and developing mitigation strategies. This proactive approach will demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the potential hurdles and ensure the feasibility of the proposed solutions.

By conducting a thorough risk assessment, the proposal can demonstrate a proactive approach to risk management and showcase the project’s preparedness to address potential challenges.

To address this gap, it would be beneficial to include a dedicated section in the proposal that outlines the potential risks and challenges that could affect the ecosystem initiatives. These risks could include technical, regulatory, market, or operational risks, among others. Each risk should be clearly identified, described, and assessed in terms of its potential impact and likelihood of occurrence.

Once the risks are identified, the proposal should provide a detailed plan for risk mitigation and management. This plan should outline specific strategies, measures, or contingencies that will be implemented to minimize or mitigate the identified risks. It is important to demonstrate a proactive and thoughtful approach to risk management, as it instills confidence in voters and shows a commitment to project success.

Furthermore, the proposal should also consider including a risk matrix that provides a visual representation of the identified risks, their impact, likelihood, and the corresponding mitigation strategies. This visual representation can enhance the clarity and comprehensiveness of the risk assessment, making it easier for voters to evaluate the potential risks associated with the ecosystem initiatives.

By addressing the lack of risk assessment and providing a comprehensive overview of potential risks and their corresponding mitigation strategies, the proposal can present a more thorough and well-rounded analysis of the project’s risk landscape. This demonstrates a proactive approach to risk management, which is crucial in gaining the trust and confidence of the community.

  1. Limited Market Analysis:
    The proposal lacks a comprehensive market analysis that assesses the current landscape and identifies key opportunities and potential competitors. It is crucial to conduct a thorough analysis of the target market, understand user needs and preferences, and identify any gaps that need to be addressed. This analysis will help us develop strategies that are tailored to the market demand and increase our chances of success.

To address this limitation, it would be valuable to include a comprehensive market analysis section in the proposal. This analysis should encompass key aspects such as market size, growth trends, target audience, and competitive landscape.

Market Size and Growth Trends: Communities are interested in understanding the size and potential growth of the market the ecosystem initiatives are targeting. This includes providing relevant market data, such as market value, projected growth rates, and any notable trends or forecasts. It is essential to support these figures with credible sources and references.

Target Audience: Identifying the target audience and understanding their needs, preferences, and behavior is crucial. The proposal should provide a clear description of the target audience for the ecosystem initiatives, including developers, businesses, or specific user groups. Additionally, insights into their motivations and pain points can help members gauge the potential demand and adoption of the proposed solutions.

Competitive Landscape: Assessing the competitive landscape is vital to determine how the ecosystem initiatives differentiate themselves and what advantages they offer over existing solutions or competitors. The proposal should provide an overview of key competitors, their strengths and weaknesses, market share, and any unique selling propositions. This analysis helps members assess the viability and market positioning of the ecosystem initiatives.

Opportunities and Challenges: It is essential to outline potential opportunities and challenges that may impact the success of the ecosystem initiatives. This includes factors such as regulatory considerations, emerging technologies or trends, strategic partnerships, or barriers to entry. Identifying these opportunities and challenges demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the market dynamics and helps to assess the potential risks and rewards.

This analysis helps build confidence in the project’s market viability and its ability to capture a share of the market. Additionally, it shows that the project team has conducted thorough research and is well-prepared to navigate the opportunities and challenges within the market.

  1. Absence of Timeline or Roadmap:
    A clear timeline or roadmap is missing from the proposal, making it challenging to visualize the sequence and duration of the proposed initiatives. It is essential to provide a detailed timeline that outlines the key milestones and dependencies, ensuring a structured and organized approach to implementation.

A well-defined timeline is crucial for the community to understand the project’s development stages, milestones, and anticipated timelines for achieving key objectives. It provides a structured approach and allows stakeholders to track progress and assess the project’s feasibility.

To address this issue, it is essential to include a comprehensive timeline or roadmap section in the proposal. This section should outline the key activities, milestones, and deliverables over the course of the project, along with the estimated timelines for each phase. Here’s how the proposal can provide a more detailed timeline or roadmap:

Phases and Activities: The proposal should identify and define the different phases or stages involved in implementing the ecosystem initiatives. Each phase should be broken down into specific activities or tasks that need to be accomplished. This helps provide a clear structure and understanding of how the project will progress.

Milestones: Clearly defining milestones is crucial for tracking progress and evaluating the success of the project. The proposal should identify key milestones at significant junctures, such as prototype development, pilot testing, market launch, and expansion. These milestones should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound (SMART).

Estimated Timelines: The proposal should provide estimated timelines for each phase, activity, and milestone. These timelines should be realistic and consider factors such as resource availability, dependencies, and potential risks or challenges. It is important to note that timelines may evolve as the project progresses, but providing initial estimates demonstrates planning and foresight.

Dependencies and Critical Path: Identifying dependencies and the critical path is crucial for understanding the sequence of activities and any interdependencies between them. The proposal should highlight activities that are dependent on others and identify any potential bottlenecks or risks that may affect the overall timeline. This helps manage expectations and assess project feasibility.

By including a well-defined timeline or roadmap, the proposal provides the community with a clear understanding of the project’s development trajectory, key milestones, and anticipated timelines. This level of detail demonstrates project management capabilities, foresight, and the ability to deliver on the proposed initiatives. It allows stakeholders to assess the feasibility and alignment of the project’s objectives with their own goals and timelines.

  1. Potential Resource Allocation:
    The proposal does not adequately address the allocation of resources required for the proposed initiatives. It is crucial to provide a detailed overview of the resources, including personnel, technology, and funding, required for each initiative. This will help us assess the feasibility and scalability of the proposed solutions.

Resource allocation is a critical aspect of any project as it determines the availability and allocation of key resources such as finances, personnel, equipment, and infrastructure. Without a clear resource allocation plan, it becomes challenging to assess the feasibility and practicality of the proposed initiatives.

To address this concern, it is crucial to include a comprehensive resource allocation section in the proposal. This section should outline the resources required for each phase of the project and provide a clear understanding of how these resources will be acquired, utilized, and managed. Here’s how the proposal can provide more detailed information on resource allocation:

Financial Resources: The proposal should provide a breakdown of the financial resources required to implement the ecosystem initiatives. This includes the estimated costs for research and development, infrastructure setup, marketing and promotion, personnel expenses, and other relevant expenditures. It is essential to outline the funding sources and demonstrate a sound financial plan to support the project’s implementation.

Personnel and Expertise: The proposal should identify the key personnel and expertise required to execute the initiatives successfully. This includes the roles and responsibilities of project managers, technical experts, marketing specialists, and any other personnel critical to the project’s success. Additionally, the proposal should highlight any potential gaps in expertise and provide a plan for addressing them, such as hiring or collaborating with external consultants.

Infrastructure and Equipment: If the proposed initiatives require specific infrastructure or equipment, the proposal should outline the requirements and the associated costs. This includes facilities, technological resources, software licenses, or any other necessary tools or assets. It is important to demonstrate how the proposed infrastructure and equipment will support the project’s objectives and contribute to its success.

Resource Management Plan: The proposal should include a resource management plan that outlines how the allocated resources will be monitored, tracked, and optimized throughout the project’s lifecycle. This involves detailing the processes for resource allocation, utilization, and potential adjustments based on changing project needs or unforeseen circumstances. Effective resource management ensures efficient use of resources and minimizes potential waste or inefficiencies.

By including a comprehensive resource allocation section, the proposal demonstrates a clear understanding of the resources required for the successful implementation of the ecosystem initiatives. This level of detail allows stakeholders to evaluate the project’s feasibility, financial viability, and resource availability. It also instills confidence in the project’s ability to effectively manage and utilize resources, thereby increasing the chances of securing the necessary support and investment.

By raising these concerns, I aim to foster a constructive dialogue and contribute to the collective effort of making API3DAO a thriving ecosystem. I believe that through open discussion, collaboration, and a commitment to transparency, we can refine and strengthen the proposal, ultimately driving the long-term success of API3 and its mission.

Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to witnessing the growth and development of your proposal through constructive dialogue.



new blood :drop_of_blood::muscle::smiling_imp:


Helloo! :grinning:


This reads like it was directly pasted from ChatGPT :rofl:


Overall, this team should be lauded for its work. While there is opportunity to expand on some of the budget line item details, the currently-live tutorials and progress in integrations speak for themselves. Developer focus and building a base of usage is imperative in this cold market.

I would request more information on specific targets for inclusion in the zksync and optimism docs, and what the brand collateral kit includes. Also, it may be useful to have extremely concise single-image or PDF “cheatsheets” on why integrating OEV-enabled dAPI proxies are (in my opinion, objectively) more beneficial than alternatives for (1) projects and dApps and their devs, and (2) less-technical users of projects and dApps to leverage community support for choosing dAPIs. However while I recognize it is perhaps counterproductive to strongly market these before the OEV share and managed dAPIs are fully live, now may be the time for the “new blood” and marketing steward to add things like this.

1 Like

I don’t mind narrowing in on a few substantive areas below if it would help guide the discussion @rAPI3r. My initial post was extremely detail oriented because I wanted to provide @Ashar2shahid with a holistic view. I don’t expect a response to each part of the post at all. I am confident that the Ecosystem subteam will be able to decide which parts are high value and which are not for the purposes of the DAO and their intentions!

As I analyzed the budget progression from Cycle #1 to Cycle #4, I noticed a significant increase in expenses, growing by a factor of 3.4x. Considering the discussions in previous cycles and the emphasis on reducing expenditures, this substantial rise in the budget piqued my curiosity. I believe it would be beneficial for the team to explain the reasons behind this significant growth.

In Cycle #1, I found three notable line items in the proposal that caught my attention: BanklessDAO / LobsterDAO for $2,000, Placement on Polygonscan for $1,200, and a Defiant / dApp Radar Banner Placement for $3,000. The Polygonscan placement, in particular, promised 100k impressions. I would appreciate it if @KenKarv could provide insights into the outcomes achieved through these line items and share any relevant metrics.

Moving on to Cycle #3, there were three line items that I found intriguing: Animated explainers / social media clips, social media creative, technical illustrations, video editing for $10,000, Design & development of the API3 Ecosystem Website for $5,000, and the Dev DAO Ad-hoc project for an additional $7,500. @KenKarv, could you please provide an overview of the deliverables and metrics associated with these line items?

Currently, within the Cycle #4 Proposal, there are six line items that caught my attention: Branded social media kit - creative process with production of brand assets for $15,000, Ad-hoc creative requirements for $10,000, Potential activities with DevDAO, ThirdWeb, AWS, etc., Support for EthPrague if needed, for $10,000, Development of ecosystem.api3.org and support with dAPPs/chain partner projects for $6,000, Community Moderation for $9,000, PR for $5,000, and Merch for $2,000. @Ashar2shahid, I would appreciate it if you could shed light on the need for an additional $25,000 for brand asset development and ad-hoc creative work, considering the previous $10,000 allocated in Cycle #3. Furthermore, regarding the API3 Ecosystem website, could you clarify how the initial $6,000 from Cycle #3 was utilized and explain the need for an additional $6,000? Additionally, there was already a $5,000 grant provided to Dev DAO in Cycle #3. Therefore, I would like to understand the necessity of an extra $10,000 for Dev DAO, AWS, and ThirdWeb, and how this would benefit the API3 project. Lastly, there is a request for $5,000 for PR, but PR is not mentioned anywhere in the entire proposal. Could you please share the PR strategy for this line item? I also welcome any input from @KenKarv regarding the social media creative, Ecosystem website, and Dev DAO requests from Cycle #3. Regarding the $2,000 allocated for Merch, my assumption is that it is intended for potential in-real-life activities. However, I am concerned about the design aspect. Has any design work been commissioned with this budget, or will the $2,000 go towards both merch design and production? Additionally, since Can is already receiving a grant for design support, would it be possible for Can and Burooj to assist with the creative and design work?

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge @KenKarv for their commendable work during the previous three cycles of the Ecosystem subteam. Their efforts have been notable, with satisfactory reporting. However, I believe there is room for improvement, such as backlinking to specific content pieces created within the Ecosystem Gitbook, as previously requested. I encourage @KenKarv to consider incorporating this enhancement in the reporting for the upcoming cycles.

Regarding the Communications team, I noticed that @Marcus and @Midhav are absent from the Ecosystem Proposal, which now encompasses general social content, community engagement, and BUNCH management. This introduces a risk as only Can remains from the previous Communications team to transfer the knowledge gained by @Marcus and @Midhav during those two cycles. @Ashar2shahid, I would like to understand if this was the intended arrangement. Furthermore, how will Marcus and Midhav be integrated into the DAO going forward? Is there a plan for them to submit a separate Communications proposal in addition to the Ecosystem proposal? If so, would that result in an additional budget of approximately $38.8k, excluding @Can’s grant? I would appreciate clarity on the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of dividing these two teams and including them under the Ecosystem Proposal.

To reiterate, my intention in raising these concerns is to foster constructive dialogue and contribute to the collective effort of making API3DAO a thriving ecosystem. I firmly believe that through open discussion, collaboration, and a commitment to transparency, we can refine and strengthen the proposal, ultimately driving the long-term success of API3 and its mission.

Thank you for your attention, and I am eagerly looking forward to witnessing the growth and development of your proposal through constructive dialogue. I’ll leave it here for now as I’ve got a flight to catch. This is by no means the only things I’d like to discuss but the car is waiting outside! All the best.


1 Like

@kurthagel thanks for the feedback but we don’t see the value of incorporating what you’re saying to the proposal, so we won’t be altering or responding.

1 Like

Hey @rAPI3r


Dear @KenKarv,

I hope this message finds you well. I’d like to begin by highlighting the concerns expressed in the Cycle #4 Ecosystem proposal about stretched relationships between API3 and its partners. In light of the current market conditions and the overall sentiment in the crypto community, I believe it has never been more crucial to foster an inclusive, transparent, collaborative, and constructive environment, especially with regards to funds and DAO accountability.

Ken, I understand that you have expressed your decision against incorporating contributor feedback into the proposal. The Web3 community, which includes partners and end users, hold strong beliefs about addressing questions and concerns related to DAO spending. It is essential to maintain trust and reinforce the values that underpin the API3DAO to secure the future of the API3 solution.

This is mentioned within the API3 Whitepaper.

Page 21, Paragraph 3 - Page 22, Paragraph 1 - 5.2 Manage of funds:
The DAO must follow two principles for this scheme to be effective.
Firstly, to limit the amount of damage a malicious or incompetent team may cause, the authority that the team has must be constrained to a bare minimum, which is also known as the “principle of least privilege”.
For example, a dAPI management team should never be able to completely recompose a dAPI that is under use, but should only be able to switch individual oracles in and out with a long enough cool-down period to ensure that their authority cannot be abused to a significant degree.
Similarly, milestones and deliverables should be utilized to grant teams only the funds they need to carry out the specific responsibilities they have at the time. The second principle is transparency. For the DAO to be able to assess its performance, the team must report to the DAO in great detail. These reports will have the additional benefit of providing accountability and allow the dAPI users and the general public to be able to audit the operations of API3 at all times.

The recent market downturn and the volatility in cryptocurrencies have undoubtedly impacted sentiment and created challenges for many projects. It is precisely during these times that the crypto community seeks reassurance, a sense of belonging, and alignment with projects that serve as an example to the space. Transparent communication is vital to build trust and strengthen the bonds between the community and API3DAO.

As the team acknowledged the strain on relationships, I kindly suggest that we seize this opportunity to proactively address questions and concerns related to DAO spending. By embracing open dialogue and providing clarity, we can alleviate doubts, build trust, and demonstrate our commitment to transparency.

Incorporating the feedback and suggestions from the wider community can also foster a sense of ownership and belonging. When DAO contributors are involved in the decision-making process and their concerns are genuinely addressed, it strengthens the bond between the project and its supporters. This, in turn, can lead to increased engagement, loyalty, and a more resilient ecosystem for API3.

Ken, I respectfully urge you to consider your perspective and engage in transparent communication with regards to questions having to do with the management and accounting of DAO funds. By doing so, we can work collaboratively to navigate these challenging times, fortify relationships, build a resilient community, and overcome obstacles that lie ahead.

Thank you for considering this request, Ken, and I extend my message to the rest of the Ecosystem subteam as well. Let us work together to foster transparency, collaboration, and understanding.


The first generation of decentralized applications were limited to the confines of the blockchain. Today, we have decentralized applications that can interact with the off-chain world in a limited and pseudo-decentralized way. API3 will power the next evolutionary wave—the third generation of decentralized applications that valuably interact with the off-chain world, leveraging APIs in a truly decentralized and trust-minimized way.

  1. Correcting your misrepresentations.

I’d like to begin by highlighting the concerns expressed in the Cycle #4 Ecosystem proposal about stretched relationships between API3 and its partners.

As the team acknowledged the strain on relationships, I kindly suggest that we seize this opportunity to proactively address questions and concerns related to DAO spending. By embracing open dialogue and providing clarity, we can alleviate doubts, build trust, and demonstrate our commitment to transparency.

Below is the content in the proposal.

Relationships with network partners are strong but stretched thin overall. Those listed above generally reflect positive relations, but more can be done in that regard and scaling to additional chains requires additional support for partner relationships and alignement. There will be more concentrated efforts here to form a rollout strategy with chains that want to support API3 DAO’s operational overheads.

As API3 increases its number of partners and depth in relationship across data providers, dApps and chains there needs to be additional capacity to manage them appropiately.

  1. You can see sufficient insight to the ecosystem teams operations below.
  1. It is great to hear you value transparency, I also value transparency. All DAO contributors have public profiles and represent API3 accordingly. Many are active in the ethereum community. You seem to refer to yourself as a contributor, as such lets connect on LinkedIn or somewhere where we can use public profiles as a basis of interaction.

  2. Feedback is incredibly valuable. New team members include community members who have provided us with feedback and insights that we’ve applied to our developer documentation. Additionally we set up the testers guild and are in the process of re-engaging these contributors as our product develops. However your 2700 word post and following comments, most likely generated by AI, is inauthentic and lacks context - so overall it’s not valueable feedback to us. When feedback is so subjective, we need to understand who is providing feedback for it to be useful. Overall misrepresenting our position as not taking in any feedback is in of itself not useful feedback which would make me question intentions.

Fundamentally, if you disagree with the direction of the team, feel free to excersise voting rights when the proposal is submitted.

1 Like

Something that isn’t mentioned in the proposal is that the ecosystem team has good reach in the space, which enables them to amplify our (developer) job postings effectively. Any improvements to that will have multiplier effects for the whole project.

Another point is I find proposals lacking in terms of retrospective accounting in general. The ecosystem budget is growing (which is great as long as it’s used effectively), which makes this more relevant. So with your upcoming proposals, please provide a “what did we plan to spend and what we actually spent with a tx-by-tx breakdown”. You can refer to the CTT proposals as an example.


Dear @KenKarv,

I want to express my gratitude for your prompt response and the attention you have given to my concerns regarding transparency and DAO spending in the API3 ecosystem. However, I still feel that there is a need for more comprehensive transparency and a willingness to share detailed DAO fund spending information for the benefit of the entire community.

After carefully reviewing your previous response, I sense a certain hesitation to provide the specific spending details that have been requested. As a member of the DAO and the general public, I strongly believe that the API3DAO’s accounting and overall accountability can only be ensured through access to comprehensive financial information.

Given the significance of this matter, I kindly request the direct involvement of API3’s Founder, @bbenligiray to address and resolve this issue. Their unique insights and perspectives as project visionaries will be invaluable in finding a satisfactory resolution to the concerns expressed by community contributors such as myself. By including the founders in the discussion, we can ensure that the decision-making process aligns with the core principles of transparency, accountability, and community participation that API3 strives to uphold.

I want to stress that my intention is not to disrupt or undermine the progress and efforts of the subteam. On the contrary, I firmly believe that open and transparent communication is the cornerstone of building a resilient and successful ecosystem. By providing the detailed spending information that has been requested, API3 can demonstrate its unwavering commitment to responsible stewardship and foster a culture of trust, collaboration, and accountability.

In light of the challenging market conditions and the prevailing sentiment within the wider crypto community, it becomes even more vital for projects like API3 to display unwavering commitment to transparency and proper financial governance. By doing so, API3 can set a positive example for other projects, inspiring confidence and attracting support from the broader community.

I earnestly urge you to reconsider your position and provide the requested spending information comprehensively and promptly. By embracing transparency in all aspects, API3 will not only address the concerns raised but also demonstrate its unwavering dedication to the values and aspirations that underpin its success.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I eagerly await a swift and comprehensive response that upholds the principles of transparency and community involvement.


@bbenligiray thanks for your feedback, we are in the phase of transitioning to a new team and the new budget is a retrospective based on previous spending in an effort to stay lean and effective. We have taken the feedback in the forums and will be more specific with our accounting going forward. As for @kurthagel you can ask these questions in our discord office hours and I’ll be happy to answer them there.

Later today, I will present the proposal for voting. Thank you everyone for participating in the discussion.


Hey @Ashar2shahid,

Thank you for your response, the specification regarding the transition to a new team and the retrospective budget based on previous spending. While I appreciate the efforts being made, I must express strongly my disappointment with the approach of redirecting a discussion as important as DAO funding to Discord office hours.

As a community contributor, I strongly believe in the importance of open and inclusive communication channels that allow all members to participate and access the information they seek. By limiting the discussion to Discord, it creates a telling barrier to entry for those who may not have access or may not be comfortable with the platform. This goes against the principles of transparency and accessibility that we value within the API3 community.

Given the upcoming voting on the proposal, it is crucial that ALL pertinent details, including spending information, are readily available within the proposal itself. This ensures that all community members have equal opportunity to review and evaluate the proposal on its merits, without having to rely on secondary platforms or sessions that may exclude or hinder participation.

In addition, I strongly urge you to involve the API3 founders in this discussion. Their leadership and insights are vital to addressing the concerns raised by the community and working towards a more accountable and transparent ecosystem. It is important that we collectively address these concerns and demonstrate a commitment to responsible financial governance.

I implore you to reconsider the approach of diverting the discussion to Discord office hours and instead make the necessary information accessible within the public forums where the initial dialogue took place. This will foster an environment of open collaboration and ensure that the API3 community can make well-informed decisions based on comprehensive and transparent information.

In addition, it is concerning that there was no advance notice provided for such office hours on any of API3’s platforms. It feels like a disingenuous attempt to silo the discussion related to DAO funding away from public view. I hope this was not the intent, however, this is how it has come off to myself and other interested parties within the API3DAO and general public.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I hope that you will take these statements into serious consideration. By embracing open and inclusive communication, we can foster a stronger and more united API3 community.


cc: @bbenligiray - How do you feel about the consistent refusal on display to provide accurate spending information for a proposal that is seeking 3.4x the budget without a single deliverable, metric, or assessment within the discussion? Can you definitively convey to the Ecosystem subteam that this looks extremely wicked for the API3 project? Thank you for chiming in earlier, I appreciate the work that the Core Technical Team undertakes. API3 is a great project that has a great future however I fear these missteps by the Ecosystem subteam are painting a picture of usurping the governance process within the DAO and I do not believe this is how you would like the DAO to be viewed by potential partners and the greater Web3 space as a whole.


I have just received this message marking my post as spam. It appears that someone has decided to flag this message for some reason.

cc: @bbenligiray Can you look into the suspicious flagging of this message? It appears to be a concerted effort to stifle constructive discussion surrounding financial management.


I will not be removing the reference to concerted corruption between the Ecosystem subteam. This post should not have been marked as spam. I implore the staff to restore this post keeping in mind the granularity of the entire dialogue within this proposal topic. Instead, I will be rewording the reference to corruption with a reference to “usurp”. The edit has been made.

New Blood

We have newcomers to the DAO for whom this will be their very first proposal, let me introduce:
Christina, a familiar in the Web3 and DAO sector. With over three years of hands-on experience, Christina has established herself as a go-to marketing and community specialist within the ever-evolving world of Web3. In her spare time, she’s the driving force behind the burgeoning project, ETHTallinn. Her expertise in developing communities and strategic marketing has made her an invaluable asset in the digital world

Hey @chrissu_k, nice to meet you. Welcome to the API3DAO. I was reviewing this proposal and wanted to inquire about your methodology with regards to community building. Can you please share your thoughts about API3s current community efforts and how you aim to improve efforts in this area with your invaluable experience in Web3.

By the way, love what you did with PizzaDAO. Looking forward to it!


Since it sounded like my input was requested, all I have to say and all I want to say here (because wasting time is the objective of these walls of text), is that none of our contributors that I’ve talked to have any idea who @kurthagel is, and besides his spam here he has never contributed anything to the project (which should be somewhat implied by the fact that he joined 2 days ago). I sincerely hope his LLM-generated gaslighting attempts aren’t fooling anyone reading this thread into thinking that he is an actual contributor to the project.

The forum admins can probably ban him but I suspect he will come back with another name and attempt to continue his antics. Thus, as we live in these modern times where a single malicious person can Sybil entire discussions in an attempt to shift sentiment towards a project, we should probably start thinking about ways to limit our exposure to the destructive potential of such tactics (on a positive note, this type of stuff is going to be inevitable for most if not all projects, esp. DAOs, so this is just another chance for API3 to lead the way in terms of DAO robustness). In the meantime and until any more programmatic solutions are adopted, we have social proof (such as my message here noting that nobody knows who this guy is, or whether he is even real) for discussions, and DAO votes for decisions, to fall back on.

With enough time and experience seeing stuff like this, I’m sure members reading the forum will also learn to weed out the spam and just read the “real” content.


Hey @heikki I requested your input regarding the management of funds within the API3DAO. It is gravely concerning that there is a constant refusal to make it possible for the API3DAO and general public to audit the funds being allotted to the Ecosystem subteam. The Whitepaper which has your name on it states very clearly that detailed reporting is necessary to allow the general public to make decisions about the DAO.

I made a meme too!


ChatGPT lacks authenticity - in all aspects…just saying.

but you do you, by all means…