An appeals review process for participants who did not receive a Goldfinch Flight Academy awards(#3)

Authors: Dava#2376, julia_jul#9550

Summary: we believe that the support and trust of the community is important to the Goldfinch team so this proposal has the main goal: define and check about 2656 appeals (without tier) of users, who did not receive awards for participation in Goldfinch Flight Academy. The basic theses on the workflow and evaluation of works are described below. As well as compensation to Leaders for reviewing appeals for verified appeals, a system that excludes fraud involving one or more leaders of appeals, fines for dishonest performance of duties by leaders, work schedule and other subtleties of the workflow.

The target and motivation:

Thousands of students of the Flight Academy who did not receive an award filed appeals in order to get the awards they deserved. The Appeal Leaders Team intends to investigate each of the appeals in order to look for honest participants who lost their rewards by mistake.

Verification process and reward levels:

Previously, the Goldfinch team developed a transparent and fair system for evaluating the work of participants in the Flight Academy, and we will adhere to it.

You can get acquainted with the criteria and distribution of awards at this link -

A new tool that blends your everyday work apps into one. It’s the all-in-one workspace for you and your team

We thank the leaders of the Goldfinch team and active participants in the previous appeal review process for your opinions, we take into the requirements for awards (you can get acquainted here -An appeals review process for participants who did not receive a Goldfinch Flight Academy awards ), and therefore the process for awarding and distributing awards is as follows:

Tier rewards and payout method:

Let me remind you that 3% was allocated for awards to the participants of the Flight Academy. 2.90% has already been paid after the first review of the appeals. We believe that those who have received awards deserve them, and we also believe that those who have not yet received them deserve them as well. For our side, we guarantee the purity of the check and the full awareness of responsibility for the result of our work.
About 90,000 GFI (~0.078%) are allocated for appeals review, which will be divided as follows:

6 - Completed most assessments and a limited number of tasks - 15%*
5 - Completed assessments as well as a few tasks and challenges - 20%*
4 - Completed assessments as well as many tasks and challenges - 30%*
3 - Completed assessments as well as most tasks and challenges - 35%*
2 - Completed assessments and almost all tasks and challenges - None**
1 - Completed all assessments, tasks and challenges, and earned top scores - None**

*Among all those who will receive this tier

**Maximum possible award tier after appeal check = 3

Prerequisites for awards

a) Proper KYC and registration should have happened for anyone appealing in order for them to receive rewards.
b) Anyone completing just 1-2 assessments did not and should not qualify for rewards.
c) Any activities must have been submitted through the proper channels and attributed to the correct address in order to count towards rewards.

Distributions will be based on the old system – 1/24 with a linear distribution within 24 months.

Weekly meetings:

Weekly meetings will take place every Saturday to report back to the community on Monday on the number of verified appeals and reward tiers allocated.

Accounting for verified appeals:

Because the scoring and distribution system was not disclosed by the previous Appeal Review Team, we believe that we have no right to open such data. But since we want the work of Leaders and the verification process to be as open and transparent as possible, we will create a separate table with open access. No other data except for the nickname in the Discord and the status of the appeal check will not be published.

To avoid diverting the Leader’s attention from the main work (see the Schedule section), the final list of tiers will be published after the completion of the entire verification process.

For each leader on the cloud, a special document will be allocated with access for other Leaders, in which he will indicate all the verified cases with the decision made on them. This will help to monitor the progress and effectiveness of each leader individually.


Monday: Working day + progress report
Tuesday: Working day
Wednesday: Working day
Thursday: Working day
Friday: Working day
Saturday: Leadership meeting, report preparation for Monday
Sunday is a day off

*Working day - regular review of appeals.

Compensation to Leaders of Appeal:

The team that will check the appeals consists of 4 people. Each of the Leaders will work at their own pace, so it would be better to choose an hourly wage - 10 USDC/hour.

The maximum number of working hours for each Leader is 80 hours. For the convenience of counting hours, the Leader can use the time tracker and provide a report on the work done at the first request of any Leader or administrator. Payment for the work of leaders will be made after the completion of the appeals review process.

So that the review of appeals does not turn into a competition between Leaders, I propose the following: if one of the Leaders has checked his appeals, and the other has not yet, the leader can check the appeals from another list. But first he must tell all the Leaders about it.

The deadline for publishing the result of the review of appeals is August 24, 2022.

The system of penalties for leaders of appeals:

At any time, one of the Appeal Leader or administrator may ask the other Appeal Leader to account for any of the awarded (or not assigned) levels of awards. If it turns out that the level of awards was assigned (or not assigned) without reason, then the Leader receives warning. The Leader cannot receive more than 3 warnings per 100 audited appeals. For violation of any of the established rules, the Leader will be punished by the administration. It can be either deprivation of compensation or exclusion from the program.

In case that one of the Leaders is expelled for violating the rules, so as not to slow the verification process down, the maximum number of working hours per week may be In case that one of the Leaders is expelled for violating the rules, so as not to slow the verification process down, the maximum number of working hours per week may not be enlarged.

If any of the appeal leaders are inactive for more than 7 days, they will be dropped from the program and their appeals and work hours will be divided among the remaining leaders.

For various reasons, the leader may cease to fulfill his duties, in which case he leaves the Leaders’ team and no one else can take his place. In this case, he is obliged to warn other participants in the verification process about this in the appropriate (#Appeal Leaders) Discord channel.


Thanks Dava and julia for another iteration of this. I believe this version still has some very serious issues with GFI distribution and payment logistics.

I really appreciate the hard work and resolve of the authors of this proposal. Ultimately, however, this process does not create a lot of value for the protocol, and so may not be the best use of protocol funds.

Given a) remaining issues, b) the lack of community engagement / support for these series of proposals, and c) no clear value creation for the protocol, I would propose that we refrain from moving this to snapshot or a governance soft vote.

I think it would be great to see similar efforts by the authors / review team put towards upcoming grants and bounties for the protocol in line with the protocol roadmap.

Thanks for the reply Andrew! I still think that the appeals leaders should be directly responsible for appeals review, but not for GFI distribution and payment logistics.

As I understand it - the appeals review process is completed before it begins. Thanks for the feedback on your part. I plan to continue to actively participate in the community to improve it. Have a nice day.

Hello @Dava! Thank you very much for your efforts!
However, after a week there is still no rough consensus around this proposal. I can also see a critical comment from a member @andrew of Governance Council under the current version of the proposal, which still remains unanswered thoroughly. Hence, I can’t recommend this proposal to be put up for a Snapshot.

Users fail to appear on the form because they missed the appeal period, but they contributed to the project and should receive the rewards that are theirs.

This will bring the community closer together and bring more people into governance.