Total: 50 Points

Weighted across proposal quality, analysis depth, and presentation effectiveness

Part 1: Proposal Quality 20 points

Score Level Criteria
18-20 Excellent Proposal is realistic, compelling, and thoroughly justified. Clear problem statement with supporting data. Budget is appropriate for DAO (0.5-3% of treasury) with detailed line-item breakdown. Success metrics are specific, measurable, and achievable. Implementation plan includes concrete steps with realistic timeline. Risks identified with thoughtful mitigation strategies. Demonstrates deep understanding of DAO's mission and governance structure.
14-17 Good Proposal addresses a genuine need with adequate justification. Budget is reasonable but may lack some detail. Success metrics are measurable but could be more specific. Implementation plan is present but timeline may be vague. Some risks identified. Shows understanding of DAO context but could be more aligned with mission.
10-13 Adequate Basic proposal structure present but lacks depth. Problem statement is general without strong evidence. Budget is in reasonable range but poorly justified. Success metrics are vague (e.g., "increase awareness"). Implementation steps are high-level without clear timeline. Limited risk analysis. Weak connection to DAO's goals.
0-9 Needs Improvement Proposal is unrealistic or poorly conceived. Budget is excessive (>5% of treasury) without justification or far too small. Success metrics are missing or unmeasurable. No clear implementation plan. No risk analysis. Does not fit DAO's mission or structure.

Proposal Quality Checklist

  • Problem clearly stated with evidence/data
  • Solution is logical and feasible
  • Budget 0.5-3% of treasury with line-item breakdown
  • 3-5 specific, measurable success metrics (KPIs)
  • Implementation plan with timeline and milestones
  • Risks identified with mitigation strategies
  • Aligns with selected DAO's mission and values
  • Professional presentation, no placeholder text

Excellent Budget Justification Example:

"$8M (0.32% of treasury): $1.8M development, $1.2M audits (3 firms), $4M liquidity incentives, $500k bridge infrastructure, $300k marketing, $200k contingency. Liquidity incentives represent 6 months at 50% APY on target $50M TVL, competitive with rival protocols offering 40-60% APY."

Part 2: Voting Analysis 15 points

Score Level Criteria
14-15 Excellent All three voting mechanisms calculated accurately with realistic assumptions. Clear comparison showing how outcomes differ across mechanisms. Insightful analysis of whale influence with specific percentage calculations. Understands strategic implications (e.g., quadratic voting reduces whale power by X%). Identifies vulnerabilities in each mechanism with concrete examples. Analysis goes beyond calculations to explore game-theoretic considerations.
11-13 Good Voting calculations are correct for all three mechanisms. Reasonable assumptions about turnout and voter behavior. Comparison identifies major differences between mechanisms. Whale influence analyzed but could be more quantitative. Recognizes some vulnerabilities. Adequate explanation of why outcomes differ.
8-10 Adequate Calculations attempted for all mechanisms but contain errors. Assumptions may be unrealistic. Comparison is superficial or missing key insights. Whale influence mentioned but not quantified. Limited discussion of mechanism vulnerabilities. Analysis stays at surface level.
0-7 Needs Improvement Calculations are missing or mostly incorrect. No realistic assumptions provided. Little or no comparison between mechanisms. Whale influence not addressed. No vulnerability analysis. Shows lack of understanding of voting mechanisms.

Voting Analysis Checklist

  • Token voting calculated with turnout assumptions
  • Quadratic voting calculated using √(credits) formula
  • Conviction voting calculated with time decay function
  • Whale influence quantified as % of outcome
  • Outcomes compared across all three mechanisms
  • Discussion of which mechanism favors your proposal
  • Identification of vulnerabilities (e.g., vote buying, Sybil attacks)
  • Strategic considerations addressed (e.g., splitting holdings)

Excellent Analysis Example:

"In token voting, the top 10 holders control 45% of supply and vote 70% YES, contributing 31.5% of total votes. Even if all other voters chose NO, the proposal would still pass. Under quadratic voting, top 10 holders' vote weight drops from 45% to 28% (√45% ≈ 67% of linear influence). This gives community voters more sway, changing the outcome to 52% YES instead of 68% YES."

Part 3: Critical Thinking & Insights 10 points

Score Level Criteria
9-10 Excellent Demonstrates sophisticated understanding of governance trade-offs. Identifies non-obvious vulnerabilities (e.g., delegation capture, vote buying markets). Proposes concrete, actionable governance improvements. Recognizes tension between decentralization and efficiency. Considers incentive alignment across stakeholders. Shows awareness of real-world DAO challenges (e.g., low turnout, whale dominance). Connects voting mechanisms to proposal types (technical vs community-focused).
7-8 Good Identifies key governance challenges with some depth. Proposes reasonable improvements though may lack specificity. Recognizes basic trade-offs between mechanisms. Shows understanding of incentive misalignment. Makes connections to real DAO issues. Adequate analysis of proposal modifications to gain support.
5-6 Adequate Identifies obvious issues (e.g., "whales have too much power") without deeper insight. Proposed improvements are generic. Limited understanding of trade-offs. Basic recognition of incentive problems. Superficial connection to real DAOs. Modification suggestions are vague.
0-4 Needs Improvement Little or no critical analysis. Fails to identify vulnerabilities beyond surface level. No meaningful improvement proposals. Doesn't understand governance trade-offs. Weak or absent recommendations for proposal modifications.

Excellent Critical Thinking Example:

"DAO C's delegation system theoretically reduces whale influence, but the top 10 delegates control 40% of delegated votes, recreating the centralization problem. Delegates face weak accountability because most delegators never revoke delegation. To improve this, implement automatic delegation expiry after 6 months and require delegates to publish detailed voting rationales within 24 hours. Consider quadratic delegation: the cost to delegate N tokens = N² voice credits, preventing whales from dominating delegate elections."

Part 4: Presentation 5 points

Score Level Criteria
5 Excellent Presentation is clear, engaging, and well-structured. Stays within 5-minute time limit (2 min pitch, 2 min analysis, 1 min improvements). Uses effective visuals or examples. Confident delivery. Answers questions thoughtfully. Demonstrates command of material.
4 Good Presentation covers required material clearly. Mostly within time limit (±30 seconds). Adequate visual support. Competent delivery. Answers questions adequately.
3 Adequate Presentation is disorganized or uneven. Significantly over or under time limit. Minimal or no visual aids. Uncertain delivery. Struggles with questions.
0-2 Needs Improvement Presentation is unclear or incomplete. Far exceeds time limit or very rushed. No preparation evident. Cannot answer basic questions. Missing key components.

Presentation Checklist

  • 2 minutes: Proposal pitch with budget and impact
  • 2 minutes: Voting analysis comparison
  • 1 minute: Governance improvement recommendations
  • Within 5-minute total time (±30 seconds acceptable)
  • Clear speaking, confident delivery
  • Visual aids or examples used effectively
  • Handles Q&A thoughtfully

Automatic Deductions

Late submission (per day) -5 points
Incomplete voting simulation (missing mechanism) -5 points
Budget exceeds 5% of treasury without justification -3 points
Plagiarism or copied content 0 points (fail)
Missing key sections (problem, solution, or budget) -10 points

Bonus Opportunities (up to +5 points)

Exceptionally creative or innovative proposal +2 points
Advanced analysis (e.g., game theory, mechanism design proofs) +2 points
Code or simulation for voting mechanisms +3 points
Real DAO feedback (posting to actual DAO forum) +2 points

© Joerg Osterrieder 2025-2026. All rights reserved.