It’s great to see quality ideas and proposals for expanding Compound’s reach, and I’d be happy to work with Alphagrowth as a CGP domain allocator if both proposals ultimately pass. I agree that Alphagrowth’s proposal is largely complementary to CGP; in defense of that claim, I want to highlight what I see as one of the areas that might be seen as an area of potential overlap, namely content creation.
In the most recent round, my CGP domain (Protocol Ideas and Dapps) approved a small handful of proposals focused on content creation, outreach, and/or education, cumulatively between 10-20% of the domain’s activity. Proposals in this area were not explicitly among the high priorities listed in the program details for this domain. I raise this example because it is offers an example of why the CGP 2.0 team felt it was important for the program detail documents to include examples of high-priority RFPs but at the same time allow for builders to bring their ideas and explore alignment with the relevant CGP domain. We also felt such content creation efforts were important for Compound but would not be eligible for CGP support if they could not be supported within this domain.
I think it would be net-beneficial to see most content creation efforts shifted out of CGP Protocol Ideas and Dapps to become part of a more streamlined initiative under Alphagrowth’s proposal. There may still be value in supporting some high-quality but smaller, community-led education and outreach initiatives, so perhaps independent builders with ideas in this area could consult with both Alphagrowth and CGP to determine whether their ideas would make sense as part of the Alphagrowth content thrust or as a standalone effort under CGP.
I agree with @kevin about the limited utility of research on chain and asset growth in the Alphagrowth proposal. While it’s possible in principle to deploy the Comet contracts on any EVM-compatible blockchain, the vast majority of them lack certain critical infrastructure to support a full Compound III deployment (Chainlink price feeds being the primary example). Between existing and in-development deployments, I don’t believe it’s an exaggeration to say that the cumulative TVL of chains on which Compound III markets are (or will soon be) deployed represents well over 90% of TVL across all EVM-comatible blockchains (excepting BNBchain and Tron, I suppose). The majority of value unlock in chain/asset growth would be development efforts to make more chains Compound-ready, which is really more up to the chains’ developer communities than it is to Compound.
On budget: a 1Q trial period with 500 COMP to ops/research/data, 1500 COMP to BD, 500 COMP to content creation, and 500 COMP of buffer for a total of 3000 COMP makes more sense to me. At current market rates, this USD equivalent of ~$126k to Alphagrowth for three months would amount to roughly 50% of the $252k in grants that CGP 2.0 awarded across its six months of operation. In other words, the funding rate to Alphagrowth would be roughly equal to that of all CGP-approved proposals combined. I hope that comparison helps place the proposal size in context and helps justify why the size I’m suggesting is 1/6 of what was requested (albeit for only half the requested period).