I donβt think a flat x% of profits would work for all projects we might receive. The repayment and profit sharing should depend on the project and be part of a project proposal.
What about projects that are 90% dev-funded vs 0% dev-funded? Shouldnβt we ask for more repayment if we give more funding?
What about projects that create non-monetary assets vs ones that do not? Shouldnβt we also consider the non-monetary value and possible ask for a lower % of monetary profits?
What about projects that require other forms of support from the DAO (volunteer devs or content creators), but do not require DAO monetary support?
If a project has their own token and airdrops the DAO 30%, does that satisfy the requirement? What if instead of airdropping thereβs a DAO vesting schedule?
It doesnβt have to be hard rule, but at least if this passes with a minimum we have some standard set going forward. Again, some proposals may not even include revenue plans and that is OK too.
Based on your points brought up, I think it would be a good idea before pushed for final approval or next stage there should be more literature about other conditions
0% funded would not have to allocate anything to the community treasury.
The current vote only sets a minimum for projects split which I envisioned as ETH from projects that charge for minting.
The next phase is to develop and approve a framework where the questions about tokens, airdrops, assets can be defined.
For community devs etc I believe that does not need to require a split or even a proposal unless it needs to tie into another part of the ecosystem. People are free to value their own time however they see fit.