►
From YouTube: Tool House Rock #14 | Questbook
Description
MakerDAO Forum Post: https://forum.makerdao.com/t/tool-house-rock-14-questbook-tuesday-august-15th-2023-14-00-utc/21631
Description:
Tool House Rock is a structured community call to give projects a way to showcase their tools and solutions to the growing MakerDAO Ecosystem. Tool House Rock will follow a consistent call agenda, focused on giving Ecosystem Actors a foundation for reviewing and assessing tools.
This Session's Guests:
* Ruchil Sharma - Founding Team Member of Questbook
What is Questbook?
Questbook is a decentralized, on-chain grants coordination protocol. Questbook enables community members to permissionlessly verify grant decisions and funding amounts with onchain data. Transparent grant programs empower community members to hold decision makers and accepted applicants accountable, resulting in a higher return on grant investments. The Questbook team also works with communities to identify relevant focus areas (domains) in order to attract quality applicants and streamline the decision process. Communities also benefit from electing experts to lead the grants program for each respective domain.
Questbook is designed for:
- Permissionless and transparent onchain grants.
- Improving the efficiency of grant programs with deliberate and well defined domains.
- Building trust and accountability within communities.
- Increasing the value returned to the entities issuing and receiving grants.
Disclaimer
This communication is provided for information purposes only. The views and opinions expressed in this meeting are those of people involved and do not reflect the official policy or position of MakerDAO or any of its contributors, Core Units, or affiliates. This communication makes no representations about the enduring accuracy of the information or its appropriateness for a given situation. This content is provided for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, financial, or tax advice. You should consult your own advisers as to those matters. References to any digital assets and the use of finance-related terminology are for illustrative purposes only and do not constitute any recommendation for any action or an offer to provide investment, financial, or other advisory services.
MakerDAO Links:
https://makerendgame.com/toolshed
https://mips.makerdao.com
https://forum.makerdao.com
https://chat.makerdao.com
A
Hello,
everyone
and
thank
you
for
joining
us
today
welcome
to
episode
number
14
of
tool.
House
Rock
today
we're
excited
to
be
hosting
Quest
book
before
we
get
started.
A
quick
recap
on
tool.
House
Rock
This
is
a
structured
Community
call
where
we
host
teams
building
exciting
projects
in
the
web,
3
space,
with
a
specific
focus
on
their
application
to
subdos
and
the
greater
maker
ecosystem.
A
B
B
B
Thank
you,
hey
everyone,
I
am
ruchel.
I
am
one
of
the
founding
team
members
at
Westbrook.
We
at
Quest
book
have
been
working
and
helping
multiple
ecosystems
run
and
manage
their
grants
program
I'm
a
builder
as
well
I've
applied
to
multiple
Dance
Program,
both
from
Technical
and
non-technical
standpoint
and
more
about
Quest
book.
Let
me
just
sorry
glitch.
B
Yeah,
so
we
at
first
book
we
are
an
on-chain,
runs
orchestration
Tool,
with
two
clear
value
or
propositions.
We
help
ecosystems,
run
their
grants
program
in
a
transparent
and
Community
First
manual.
Based
on
my
experience,
I
have
submitted
proposals
to
three
kind
of
grants.
Programs,
one
is
a
Review
Committee
using
a
centralized
tooling,
such
as
notion
a
table
which
is
perfectly
fine
from
operation
standpoint,
but
the
problem
that
a
proposal
feels
there
is
number
one.
B
They
don't
get
to
see
how
the
proposals
are
being
being
evaluated
and
when
they
will
hear
back
from
the
team,
sometimes
I've
experienced
it
takes
a
couple
of
weeks.
It
can
go
as
long
as
two
months
and
on
the
decision
making
standpoint
it's
not
very
transparent,
so
you
are
not
quite
entirely
sure
why
your
proposal
is
accepted
or
rejected
if
it's
a
opaque
process.
B
That's
what
we've
been
doing
since
the
last
one
and
a
half
two
years
who
do
we
work
with?
We
work
recently
started
engaging
with
arbitild.
We
concluded
compound
transfer
game
2.0
for
the
last
six
months.
The
bootstrapped
polygon
grants
program
back
in
2021,
early
2022
help
them
disburse
close
to
a
million
dollars
currently
working
with
Todd
foundation
and
sirana
Foundation
as
well
foundation.
Grantee
overall
Quest
book
has
received
1500
proposals.
B
B
A
similar
program
is
being
advocated
and
we
will
be
running
it
for
arbitum
down
arbitrim
down
using
Quest
book.
Anyone
can
come
on
the
platform.
Ask
questions
to
the
proposers.
Take
feedback,
give
feedback
to
these
allocators,
and
but
these
allocators
are
solely
responsible
for
taking
decisions
on
top
of
that
they
undergo
a
voting
process
every
quarter
so
that
there
there
is
no
governance
capture
from
there
and
as
well.
B
These
were
the
metrics
of
CG
cdb
2.0.
All
this
data
is
transparent
on
Quest
book.
So
it's
not
something
that
we
are.
We
have
pulled
out
this
data
anyway,
from
all
this
data
can
be
and
is
visible
to
the
committee
members
or
on
Quest
book
or
Cross
or
full
domains.
We
disburse
326k
allocated
670k
out
of
the
proposed
800k,
which
is
around
84
overall,
the
communication
turnaround
time
was
less
than
48
hours.
The
funding
turnaround
time
less
than
two
weeks.
The
NPS
from
the
proposers
was
8.6.
B
Based
on
our
learnings
with
multiple
ecosystems,
we
have
a
Playbook
that
grants
program
looking
to
decentralize
and
focus
on
transparency
should
focus
on,
as
I
mentioned
earlier,
what
problems
Builders
face
when
submitting
a
proposal
to
new
or
ecosystems
or
existing
ecosystems?
Is
they
don't
know
what
to
propose?
They
don't
know
who
will
evaluate
their
proposal?
They
don't
know
who
to
contact
from
their
guns
team.
They
don't
know
when
and
how
their
proposals
will
be
evaluated
or
how
much
funds
were
dedicated
to
funding
those
proposals.
B
And,
finally,
the
turnaround
time
is
already
a
big
question.
They
don't
know
when
they
will
receive
the
grant
amount
I've
personally,
faced
all
of
these
challenges
myself,
while
applying
to
a
different
trans
program
or
based
on
these
questions,
interviews
and
research
and
speaking
to
multiple
Builders
in
the
ecosystem.
We
propose
insights
that
any
ecosystem
can
derive
derive
and
we
ourselves
have
build
out
a
design
model
for
running
the
grants
program
and
also
our
tooling
supports
that
particular
model.
B
B
The
second
Insight
is
knowing
the
reviewer's
name,
or
the
allocator's
name
makes
them
accountable
and
significantly
reduces
turn
their
own
time.
So,
on
the
left
hand
side,
as
you
can
see,
there's
there's
a
team
with
almost
the
same
hierarchy
and
Builders
didn't
know
whom
to
reach
out.
So
they
referred
the
team
as
hi,
guys,
hello,
admin
and
because
of
this
diffusion
of
responsibility,
nobody
knows
who
will
respond
to
the
queries
and
it
results
in
bystander
effect.
B
Whereas
on
the
right
hand
side,
you
can
clearly
see
that
the
allocator
or
the
specific
person
who
is
running
that
particular
domain
is
called
out
and
that's
again,
very
transparent.
So
if
they're
not
responding
quickly,
the
community
can
see
how
good
they
are
in
terms
of
both
the
response
to
another
on
time
and
the
funding
turnaround
time
and
the
so
and
the
actionable
feedback
is
also
very
specific,
because
these
allocators
are
accountable
in
a
public
forum,
foreign.
B
Process
is
transparent,
it
leads
to
Quality
submission
resubmissions
and
decrease
decrease
disputes
by
what
I
mean
what
I
mean
by
that
is.
If
you
can
already
see
the
proposals
that
are
submitted
I
as
a
proposal
would
not
submit
a
review
repeat
proposal
so
that
will
decrease
the
pipeline
of
redundant
proposals
and
also,
if
I
am
given
timely,
actionable
feedback
by
the
allocator.
My
resubmission
quality
will
also
be
much
higher
as
compared
to
a
opaque
review
process.
B
As
you
can
see,
on
the
left
hand
side
these
are
actual
screenshots
from
Dows
who
have
a
grants.
Program
Builders
never
get
to
know
what
the
reason
for
their
rejection
was,
whereas
in
this
case
we
we
had
clearly
well
defined
evaluation
rubrics
the
allocators
code,
The
Proposal,
based
on
these
rubrics
and
gave
comments
to
support
their
reviews,
and
the
disputes
were
very
few.
B
Thank
you.
The
final
point
is
having
a
dedicated
grants.
Budget
significantly
enhances
a
developer
or
the
Builder
mind.
Share
I've
had
the
experience
of
submitting
a
grant
proposal
where
I
was
the
program
launched
with
the
grant
amount
of
50k
per
accepted
proposal,
but
I
was
given
15K
as
an
individual
Builder
So.
To
avoid
such
cases,
it's
it's
bet
all.
B
These
amounts
that
you
see
here
are
directly
coming
from
a
nurses
save
dedicated
to
Grants,
so
it's
imperative
for
Grant
programs
to
not
just
announce
that
they
have
a
million
dollar
or
10
million
dollar
against
program,
but
also
have
dedicated
funds
that
can
be
visible
in
a
transparent
manual.
We
have
been
following
this
activity
for
treasuries
because
all
of
the
data
for
a
dedicated
treasury
is
visible,
but
unfortunately
that
is
not
the
case
with
most
grants
program.
B
Finally,
impact
evaluation
is
a
very
wide
area
of
research.
We're
also
spending
a
lot
of
time
there,
but
to
compress
a
all
the
impact
areas
of
Grants
program.
We
track
these
metrics,
based
on
the
nature
of
the
ecosystem,
Milestone
completion
rate
for
compounded
for
75
percent
project
completion
rate
user
adoption,
growth
and
engagement
within
the
community
and
all
specifically
contributed
Community
tvl
of
the
funded
proposals
and
finally,
number
of
projects
raising
institutional
capital
in
terms
of
brand
and
content
awareness.
B
B
Finally,
all
these
four
areas
lead
to
a
very
high
NPS.
In
our
case,
it
was
8.6
and
there's
still
definitely
scope
of
improvement.
But
if
an
ecosystem
focuses
on
these
four
pillars,
which
is
a
narrow,
Focus
area,
familiarity
with
reviewers,
transparent
review
process
and
dedicated
grants
budget,
the
likelihood
of
having
a
high
NPS
and
a
successful
grants
program
is
significantly
higher
because
we
are
taking
care
of
transparency,
accountability
and
Community
oversight.
B
Finally,
why
Quest
book
over
the
span
of
last
one
and
a
half
two
years
we
have
done
almost,
we
spent
zero
dollars
on
marketing
and
we
intend
to
continue
the
same.
We
have
organic
traffic
of
30,
000
monthly
developers.
We
make
sure
that
the
funds
are
allocated
and
are
aligned
with
the
focus
area
of
the
ecosystem
that
we
work
with.
Reviewers
are
elected
from
the
community
and
by
the
community.
B
B
Any
ecosystem
can
make
direct
payouts
through
a
multi-stick
wallet
on
chain.
The
communication
and
funding
tournament
on
time,
as
I
mentioned,
is
less
than
48
hours
and
two
weeks
respectively
and
finally,
NPS
across
the
board
is
significantly
higher
before
I
move
to
the
demo.
I'll
just
take
a
pause
and
see
if
anyone
has
any
questions.
B
Sure
and
that's
a
great
question,
my
bad
it
needs.
It
means
net
promoter
score,
so
we
evaluated
two
things
while
engaging
with
Builders
continuously
one
was:
how
was
their
overall
experience
with
the
grants
program
that
was
8.2
and
NPA
says
How
likely.
Are
you
to
recommend
this
particular
graph
program
to
your
Builder
friend
that
was
8.6.
A
B
B
You
can
go
to
any
of
these
ecosystems
so
in
in
the
case
it
was
Compound
on
the
left,
hand,
side
and
anyone
can
view
the
proposals.
The
quality
see
the
engagement
of
so
he's
the
allocator
and
the
scores
that
they've
given
to
each
proposal.
So
this
is
the
score
on
top
of
the
NPS
score
that
these
allocators
give
to
each
proposal
and
share
their
rational
as
to
why
they
think
that
this
proposal
should
be
accepted
or
rejected.
B
And
anyone
can
come
here
from
an
ecosystem,
they
can
ask
tough
questions
and
even
help
out
the
allocator.
On
top
of
that
we
have
guides.
So,
as
I
mentioned,
we
have
clear,
well-defined
rfps
for
each
domain.
So
what
what
is
in
in
scope
of
my
domain?
What
do
I
want
to
see
get
funded?
What
makes
a
good
proposal
in
this
domain
and
examples
of
a
good
proposal,
so
these
are
all
the
guides
that
we
have
written
with
each
allocator
for
each
domain.
B
Happy
to
answer
any
questions
take
feedback
on
how
we
can
further
improve
this.
That's
pretty
much
it
from
from
my
side
in
terms
of
the
demo,
it's
fairly
straightforward.
So
as
soon
as
anyone
comes
to
a
quest
book,
you
can
just
click
Start
accounts
program.
In
this
case
you
can
say
we
could
Dev
tooling
grants.
B
The
next
step
is:
how
will
the
reviews
be
done
by
the
team?
It's
either
a
vote
or
yes
or
no
buy
the
the
Review
Committee
or
the
allocator
or
rubric,
which
are
scores
on
every
proposal.
I'll
just
select
rubric
here
and
you
can
Define
the
criteria
of
each
evaluation
rubric
it.
In
this
case,
it
can
be
relevant
to
make
a
doubt
uniqueness.
B
And
out
of
one
to
five,
you
can
score
each
proposal
and
the
last
step
is
how
the
proposals
will
be
paid
out.
Will
they
be
paid
out
in
one
go
or
will
they
be
paid
out
in
based
on
milestones?
And
finally,
what
is
the
average
Grant
amount
paid
out
to
grantees
I'll
just
say
5000.
once
it's
done,
you
can
just
create
click,
create
trans
program
and
the
on-chain
grants
program
is
created.
B
B
B
Also,
you
can
also
see
all
the
Milestones
that
that
the
proposal
has
submitted
so
for
each
Milestone.
It
shows
up
the
amount
that
is
required
to
be
paid
out
and
once
a
proposal
is
accepted
or
rejected,
you
can
make
a
milestone
based
payouts
and
also
try
to
show
that
these
are
all
the
demo
Grant
programs
that
I've
created.
So
you
can
ignore
all
these.
These
are
not
visible
to
everyone,
because
this
is
the
for
you
section,
so
I'll
just
take
one
example.
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
Not
not
specifically
it's
the
scoring
is
basically
before
you
accept
a
rejected
proposal.
Once
that's
done
you,
the
reviewer
makes
Milestone
based
payouts.
So
if
the
Milestone
is
hit
in
this
case,
let's
say:
if
Milestone
one
is
it,
you
can
make
the
payout.
Otherwise,
you
don't
make
payouts
to
the
proposal.
There's
no
scoring
after
these
scores
have
been
submitted,
and
once
the
decision
on
a
proposal
has
been
taken.
A
B
B
How
was
the
decision
taken
the
overall
contributions
of
the
funded
projects
to
in
this
case,
compounds
governance,
activity
and
Supply,
borrow
demand
and
based
on
that,
the
community
judges,
the
performance
of
each
allocator
and
also
these
domains,
whether
they're
even
required
or
not?
So
if
anyone
has
any
objections,
they
can
just
raise
a
proposal.
So
let's
say
any
core
contributor
or
anyone
in
the
compound
Forum
can
just
say:
hey
I
did
not
like
the
performance
performance
of
this
allocator.
He
was
very
slow.
B
He
didn't
allocate
projects
to
the
right
set
of
teams
and
they
should
be
replaced
so
and
if
they
get
enough
traction
that
proposal
that
proposal
will
not
even
this
every
quarter.
Every
quarter
is
a
practice,
but
they
can
initiate
that
proposal.
Even
before
a
quarter,
we
call
it
a
no
confidence
motion
and
replace
them
with
either
a
more
competent
person
or
just
not
have
this
domain
altogether.
A
B
B
B
B
I
think
that's
a
great
question,
so
the
the
number
and
the
overall
quality
of
disputes
has
been
significantly
lower
as
compared
to
others.
The
reason
being
all
the
requests
for
feedback
goes
to
these
this
allocator
and
they
themselves
give
even
if
the
mile,
according
to
them
the
Milestone,
is
not
hit.
They
give
pointed
feedback
feedback
as
to
what
needs
to
be
done
for
the
Milestone
to
be
hit
rather
than
just
saying:
hey.
B
The
Milestone
is
not
hit,
that's
one
and,
secondly,
they're
oblige
to
respond,
because
their
renewal
depends
on
their
performance,
so
combining
the
accountability
factor
and
the
quality
of
feedback
given
by
the
core
contributor
of
compound.
In
this
case,
the
amount
of
disputes
have
been
almost
negligent
until
now.
Till
now,.
B
We
have
found
it
to
be
a
great
balance
between
speed
and
decentralization,
because
these
allocators
are
elected
from
the
community
and
by
the
community
and
speed,
because
they
are
the
sole
decision
makers
and
if
they
are
very
slow
in
responding
or
the
quality
of
decision,
is
not
that
great,
they
are
at
the
risk
of
getting
replaced
even
before
a
quarter.
So
the
program
design
has
been
made
before
before
it
was
put
in
practice.
We
worked
one
one
and
a
half
years
to
Think
Through
the
design.
B
Got
it
I
think
that's
a
great
question:
we
don't
have
rubric
right
now.
I
think
you
should
definitely
something
worth
thinking
through,
so
we
should.
We
don't
have
right
now
rubrics
for
a
milestone.
We
have
rubrics
for
an
overall
proposal
and
by
that
the
allocator
or
reviewer
is
signaling,
that
the
in
principle
agree
with
the
objectives
and
the
Milestones
laid
out
by
the
proposer
and
that
that
is
one.
B
What
accepting
a
proposal
means
in
our
case
and
for
any
pair
Milestones
to
show
the
rubrics
more
than
what
is
shown
here
as
I
mentioned
there
are
where
we
don't
have
milestones
paired
with
evaluation
rubric.
So
the
rubric
is
paired
with
the
overall
proposal
right
now,
as
compared
with
the
milestones.
A
B
That
is
another
great
question,
the
so
in
terms
of
statistics
we
got
we
have
around
20
of
the
proposers
as
Anonymous,
even
in
this
case
the
allocator
is
pseudonymous
or
anonymous,
and
the
problem
that
they
face
is
sometimes
not
getting
a
grant
from
the
committee,
because
it's
hard
for
them
to
prove
their
credentials
and
to
solve
that.
We
built
out
our
own
protocol,
which
is
a
reclaim
it's.
B
It
started
off
with
a
solution
for
these
segment
of
pseudonymous
and
Anonymous
people
looking
for
Grants,
but
then
we
generalized
it
not
only
on-chain
but
off
chain
as
well,
so
using
reclaim
you
can
access
user
data
from
any
website
without
using
an
API.
This
is
live
as
a
as
a
protocol
still
under
audit
reviews.
Heavy
testing.
The
next
step
is
to
integrate
this
with
Quest
book,
so
that
not
only
can
you
put
your
own
gen
data,
you
can
also
Port
your
off
chain.
B
A
A
B
And
Twitter
as
well
so
I
have
the
same
telegram
and
Twitter
handle
for
reaching
out
to
Facebook.
You
can
reach
out
to
us
through
to
radians
like
with
this
special
account
as
an
organization.
We
respond
to
every
query
on
Twitter
and
as
a
quest
book
product
the
on
the
home
page.
We
have
a
button
to
reach
out
to
us
for
any
query,
so
you
can
just
let
me
share
that
as
well,
so
that
it's
visible
to
everyone.
A
B
B
Nothing
I
just
wanted
to
say
thank
you
so
much
for
giving
us
the
opportunity
to
present.
The
only
request
from
my
side
is
that
every
grants,
program,
structure
right
from
the
design
to
processes
to
the
impact
has
Improvement
of
scope
of
improvement,
especially
on
the
impact
side
and,
if
anyone's
interested
in
having
a
detailed
discussion
or
async
discussion.
I
am
more
more
than
happy
to
engage
in
that
and
would
love
to
initiate
that
conversation
as
well.