On Step 2: POP Criteria Score
It is written that a “POP score >66% meets the requirements to continue through the POP process”.
Let’s assume a POP reaches only 50% in Step 2 but the Centrifuge DAO in Step 3 gives the recommendation to continue in the process? Maybe the answer is already given in the post but how binding is this threshold?
Is my understanding correct that the Centrifuge DAO in Step 3 could “overrule” the recommendations made in the previous step of the process?
Hi @Tjure07 yes that’s correct – meeting less than 66% of the qualification criteria doesn’t block any potential pool from progressing in development or advocating for their proposal in the forum. A less than 66% proposal could be recommended by Centrifuge DAO, as you stated.
The real purpose of the 66% hurdle rate is to free contributors responsible for producing the recommendations in Step 3 from having to diligence every single proposal, when many will clearly not meet the qualifying criteria.
Thank you for clarifying all the steps in Stage 1 in a clear and understandable way!
Obviously the most important factor for the parties involved is the 66 % threshold (satisfying 7 out of the 10 criteria) for the proposal to “pass”.
I am just curious what the percentage (roughly) would be, if these 10 criteria were applied to the current pools on Tinlake? In other words, would the current pools on Tinlake score more/less than the 66 % ?
I think that’s a great exercise and one that any community member can do.
I don’t think it’s fair too retroactively apply the criteria, but it could be helpful in understand why the criteria is proposed this way moving forward.
Colin, now you put a bee in his bonnet. 
I am sure Rhano will apply the criteria on the existing pools just for fun 
Pretty easy to see that a $10m starting point would mean all but 1 of the existing pools would have difficulty qualifying.
Perhaps the launch value could be expressed as a calculation based on average asset value. Like 5x or 10x average asset value at launch, so something like that.
Recognizing the CFG wants to see more institutional grade pools, I appreciate the current criteria set. Just may prove challenging as we migrate to a new platform until it’s demonstrated “sea worthiness.”
Good point! As Centrifuge goes through different stages (also moving from Tinlake to Pools on Centrifuge Chain), we are also evolving what we are looking at for asset managers and have come up with the qualifying criteria as such. I believe that most of our current pools would be able to meet 66%+ of the criteria.
The criteria could also evolve as Centrifuge evolves, but what we put forth is what we believe is needed for the protocol currently.
On Step 6:
The community is likely to listen to the recommendation of this group - I imagine there would need to be a good reason for the community to go against the recommendations of this group. So it makes sense that the community is fully on board with the framework for choosing these 3rd parties and understand exactly why they have been chosen.
IMO this isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Lots of early stage companies / SMEs launched on Tinlake, which was great for both parties (the Issuers and Centrifuge) to learn from each other and figure out product/market fit together. But as Centrifuge matures, so should the scale of the companies launching pools on Centrifuge. That absolutely doesn’t mean Centrifuge should stop working with the earlier pools - we all want to grow together. It just means that Centrifuge community should recognise the scale it’s got to now and be actively choosing larger / more institutional partners for new pools.
This is great thinking. Agree with all of your points and I think the eventual answers to all these questions will unfold transparently through the forum and here
I personally don’t have a strong view on whether or not they are third parties.
I’m more interested in the following
All the above bullet points are essential for successful formulation, execution and end process. How about inclusion of 'Provision of Quality Assurance ’ after point 2. Meaning once the assessment is provided by expertise panel group, it is evaluated from quality perspective and reassures that the proposal set forth captures all required essentials.
Do you think @ctcunning there is merit in it?
Of course. I would also think that this happen in public, transparently on the Forum. It’s important that the outcomes, results, reports be shared publicly (to the extent that it’s possible), be shared with the community.
Hi @ctcunning, really amazing outline, very comprehensible.
I see we created a new category here, which you also mentioned we will subdivide going forward. but i think for now we should stick to the traditional category flow. do you think this qualifies as an announcement or RFC? certain aspects of this are related to future proposals so it could be RFC-ish. but overall, is it an announcement?
cc: @Tjure07
I think this Proposal Stage 1 is in RFC I think.
ok, so i’ll go ahead and change this to RFC
Absolutely. The community had enough time to comment on this proposal and plenty of feedback was attached to this proposal
How long will this stay in RFC?
Good day
Topic creator decide min discussion time during the RFC.
Once time is over topic creator could close RFC (just with comment that discussion is over and we are going to create the poll) and start the Poll (with indicating min. Timeframe 7-10-14 days).