The funding of $10K with a recommended size of $1K will have some unintended consequences. For many projects, that’s not a fair market price, especially if you consider the cost of “sales”. This goes back to research (obvious but there’s research) from Dan Arieli about gifting versus payment. He says, if I ask you to change my flat tire for $150, . If I ask you to do me a favor and change my tire, you’re also good with that and understand it as a gesture of friendship/volunteerism. If I ask you to change my tire for $5, you’re insulted. It’s neither fair payment nor a favor.

We’ve already seen this in the first iteration of the Genesis DAO. It’s clear that this was unintentional, and I think that the team on that DAO are looking more deeply into this and discussing it. The second consequence that Genesis found was that people spend a lot of time “breaking up” larger proposals and projects into smaller bits. This causes boring meetings, certain types of politics, and difficult project tracking.

Simply put, Genesis DAO already can inform you on what will happen with a mismatch between funding and expectations, so it might be wise to consider the existing knowledge.

The size of projects you are asking people to submit will discourage most highly trained professionals in developed (expensive) economies. If this is just an experiment (like Genesis DAO), that’s fine. If it’s a serious attempt to build something, in a fairly short time, your pool of proposers will include people in low-cost countries, students, and possibly some fanboys who just love Polkadot. Others will feel discouraged and/or resentful about the size of the pot.