At this initial stage of our decentralization journey, any proposal is sure to fail the relative high quorum without founders’ and or foundation’s vote as token ownership and active participation are still way too centralized with you guys and the organizations you represent.
This failure is unfair to @kenorb. No one would have expected that you guys didn’t participate in the first ever community proposal vote. If you guys had voted no, then the fairness needle might have moved just a little, but that will still leave a bad taste in every concerned Pundian’s mouth as @kenorb had presented a non-frivolous proposal.
Just woke up, was hoping to see it get passed last minute. Disappointed that it got rejected.
Come to think of it, 283mil tokens are being bonded and there are only wallet 2000 holders - which is an avg of 115k+ FX per holder - which means 67% (283m) of total supply staked is being held by only 2000 holders.
Is the team holding majority of the tokens in separate anonymous wallets? Since that will actually give them majority of the voting power behind the scenes.
Although i think the incubator fund that Kenorb requested - 100k FX - is a bit too high for just a wallet? Since the team can just hire a developer to make a wallet with not even 10k USD. I’m not a tech person so i do not know how complicated it actually is to make one, so forgive me.
I guess the give-and-take has to be reasonable from both sides.
Because if you think about it, 100k FX - 8 months span for a desktop wallet is kinda overkill, maybe? It doesn’t look like proper usage of the fund imo which can be ultilize in a better way, it looks like overspending.
Although, i would vote for Kenorb’s wallet again if it gets a second try if he gets refunded.
Have to be fair to both sides and see from a neutral standpoint.
@kenorb I applaud you for being the first community proposals, and hopefully this project can still make it. I’ll personally refund the FX tokens you used for a second voting.
@all To be able to > 10% of token particpation in NAMMY in all honesty not an easy feat. Go take a look at how other major DAO proposals perform to get a sense of it.
@Telchar@JL23 that is a splendid idea, to have a window to vote via f(x) Wallet.
To address a larger question, the high quorum needed does impede (and safeguard) the system. If quorum is too low, a whale can just buy up $fx and vote to get all the EGF funds, that can be disastrous. In NAMMY’s case it has proven to impede the passing of this proposal.
@SCENE majority of tokens are sitting in exchanges, hence it isn’t tracked on-chain. Just look can the $fx volume these exchanges do each day.
Also @SCENE it’s possible that your reasoning could be why some holders sat on fence. I personally think if it’s a well-crafted and well-managed extension this amount is def worth it, not just a github-fork that can be done in few days.
I did mentioned a few times too before that it would be great, to have f(X)Wallet pop a notification whenever a proposal gets proposed by default so delegators know what’s up.
And we will get to “Favorite” a proposal to get on-going notifications regarding the proposal’s progress.
People may ask - Why have a “Favorite” option? Because, incase, in future when there are multiple devs submitting proposals, users of f(X) Wallet won’t get bombarded with notifications every second that a proposal is being submitted. So basically, a turn on/off switch in the settings and a “favorite” option on each proposal to keep track on each proposal that you have interest in.
The pop-up notification also act as a reminder to all users that “Hey, we have a proposal going on, please exercise your rights and vote”!
Sometimes, humans need a reminder to do something even if they already know that they need to do something, an extra push like a notification would help greatly
Thanks for personally refunding the FX tokens to @kenorb
Do consider introducing incentives for fx holders to vote to mitigate voting fatigue as I foresee there will be many more proposals to vote on and if there is no incentive to vote, people’s voting interest is likely to wane… I believe the voting culture within the community needs to be cultivated through incentives at least in the initial stages to promote taking the action to vote.
I agree with @SCENE . We need to know what is in functionx plugin, if not a programmer can easily fork a plugin from Metamask code, no? And shouldn’t grant be in USD if fx token value goes up x10 it will be weird for the recipient, in a good way for him but bad token management for the foundation.
The problem we are facing, countless of community members have point it out…
People don’t use desktop anymore as they uses smart phone… we are not 90years old… we are youth that believe and drive on improving innovation…
Don’t expect to get more vote if you can’t implement phone voting on FX wallet . …
Pls listen to the community more… some people’s suggestion might sound stupid… but take a deep breath and think it over… they are actually making sense…
If you can’t make implementations simple, we will keep having problems and lose more community members…
The project will then lose strength, and people will only buy it when it pump… and ofcause dump it thereafter, … Afterwards all the organic growth we are preaching will become useless…
One step at a time, they did mention that it is for desktop only FOR NOW.
I’m pretty sure they will implement phone voting in future. They have a lot on their hands at the moment with all the explorer upgrades, cross chain updates, app UI changes and so many more.
Give them some time, we can always give suggestions but let’s not rush things.
Rome wasn’t built in a day Good things takes time to build.
First of all, thank you for all who supported and voted on the 1st community proposal. In short summary almost 100 people voted and proposal achieved 100% on YES, however only around 12.5% has been reached out of required 40% quorum threshold.
Unfortunately the project didn’t have enough participation, which is a bit surprising.
I have taken the risk by raising the proposal mainly on the assumption that f(x) validators are going to vote as per October Hash Out explanation and the information gathered from this post. However my assumption was wrong and none of the servers participated.
I’ll reassess my situation and try another luck next year. Personally I think it’s better to wait for community-based validators, so network is more decentralized to avoid single point of failure.
I may start slowly on the project on my own, but without the fund, it’s going to be more challenging and slow process.
Thanks again.
It’s complicated, as many different technologies needs to involved including cryptography.
A standard approach to create such project would involve hiring a few professionals such as a cryptography specialist, security engineer, also front-end/UX, back-end and smart-contract programmers (potentially it can be the same person), tester, devops guy, and a team lead to drive this, not to mention architect (to design overall stuff, if it’s bad designed at start, it won’t work, and money is wasted) and project manager to manage the workload (there could be more, BA, tech writers, etc.). So in total 8-10 people (minimum), each $80k-130k/pa salary (depends on the skillsets and country) plus costs (e.g. cloud/servers), the total cost of development can exceed $1mln a year. Potentially it can be finished it in couple of months (there is a risk it won’t), then another months for DApps integration. You can also hire contractors to speed up the process, but the costs can double. It’s very difficult to find the right people who specialise in different technical areas at the same time (especially for blockchain, it’s still new, so not many experts on the market). The company who did similar project for other blockchain (which is now popular), has 500+ employees globally across different skillsets (most likely it’s not their main project, but still give some idea how big it can be), and it’s basically never ending story.
So given my expertise in variety of technical areas across 20+ years, in my opinion, proposal is very low-budgeted and it just meant to give a good head start for unknown and challenging areas of blockchain by delivering alternative solutions next to the existing one (if there are any).
I created a thread about it in the suggestions section. All proposals should be in USD and ask for equivalent FX.
Due to high volatility of crypto, the service provider and the fx holders both need to be protected. Otherwise project can fail mid way funding, if the price fluctuates too much either way.
I in person commend your effort… I understand what you are talking about… I have tried developing a blockchain project which @BlueStitch is aware of but still on it because no much expert in the field, and that alone can make you keep losing money.
If that is the case am open for partnership in this project, let’s lunch and build it personally without any vote…
I love this idea, to increase the chances of more YES votes, @kenorb can try to reduce the grant amount, a $150K grant is not small given that even Uniswap’s developer tooling grant gives out on averag $20K and the most $50K for their first wave program. I believe the team can follow up with more grants after the plugin is delivered and more features are needed.
I did imply that the foundation-run validator might vote in proposals, which in the end it didn’t. This applies also to proposal 1 which was foundation-initiated proposal, which no foundation-run validators voted.
We returned the 10,000 $fx back to Kenorb since we are all figuring out the governance process. I am afraid future failed proposals can’t expect refunds.
Two part funding: many have suggested a multi part funding due to the amount applied. I suggest first part is to deliver the technical deliverables you mentioned after receivign 50% funds. Second fund is released after the plugin achieve 500 monthly active user (not download) and forum voting (>50% community agree to release final fund) etc.
Allocation in $USD: when the proposal was suggested in this forum, that amounted to $50,000 USD, that is also a more reasonable amount and if future developments warrant more, we can go on future proposals.
Single or multiple governance proposal: apply two times for two part funding, or foundation apply once on behalf. Foundation releases funds to Kenorb. That also solves the worry of deposits are not refunded, in the case of a failed proposal.
I also want to let in that plugin development was in our internal dev timeline, but once we heard about Kenorb’s idea we wanted to prioritize that first. We might still launch one but everyone loves community built plugins and I hope Kenorb can reapply again.
Very kind of you/team to return 10,000 $fx to kenorb. I appreciate that. We learned something with this failed proposal. I think also that the next failed proposal should not refunded. We should move step by step in the direction to decentralization.
Personally, i am supporting @kenorb on this proposal.
A web-browser wallet created by community member is a great idea. One of the example that works and growing big is https://phantom.app/.
I support you to reapply for this also. I think a wallet design mockup draft will be a great addition. Maybe can open this opportunity for other community members to assist? Just my personal random thoughts.
@kenorb
First, thank you for the effort and the risk taken to propose this first community-led proposal.
I’d recommend you do not re-submit until f(x)Wallet integrates voting in the application and maybe until we have mainnet community-led validators running.
Good things takes time to build.
I appreciate that. We learned something with this failed proposal. I think also that the next failed proposal should not refunded. We should move step by step in the direction to decentralization.