Using streaming payments vs lump sum to fund teams

There is an alternate funding model, the streaming payment, that allows the DAO to monitor progress of proposal and gives it better control over funds.

Streaming payments allow receivers to withdraw funds at a constant rate over a specified time. Funds are deposited into an escrow smart contract, which unlocks a proportion of the funds based on a vesting schedule decided by the sender. The schedule cannot be changed, but funding can be stopped at any time by the sender.

To access this model, the DAO would fund projects using, a protocol which facilitates a pro-rata time-based withdrawal of funds for project teams and stream cancellation by senders. Documentation can be found here: Streams - Sablier Docs

It is possible to mix and match these approaches: fund developers with a lump sum, and their on-going costs with a stream.

Using an alternative to lump sum payments aligns on-chain payments with off-chain proposal guarantees and could be the right fit for future proposals.

Additional documentation: Operating the Sablier Protocol Manually | by Paul Razvan Berg | Sablier | Medium


I’ve created a test of Sablier streams against a mainnet fork of Nouns DAO to simulate a real world scenario. The details for how to set proposing with a stream are all here and can hopefully serve as a template for future use.


Are there any problems that DAOs user Sablier have run into it using it? Do we stop payment streams for projects that are not living up to expectations with a simple governance vote or what would you expect the process to be?

1 Like