Went all over it, and proposed a lot of editorial modifications, and some more to complete the document.
But it seems my write-access rights were removed before I was eventually done.
Beside adding information about the proposal deposits, it would also be nice, in the inquiry form, to add some question related to the proposer’s will to share any of the personal info. Or maybe to split the “personal info” in two parts : one part with just a pseudo on this forum, one part with all the personal info.
This is definitely the right step to project proposals. Everything seems to be defined (which I very much like) and clearly communicates what is expected from the proposer while cleverly drawing a line on what can be expected from the team/fund.
I think a bit more could be added with regards to the budget and projects that need minimal but continuous funding.
will make those amendments suggested by the community. once ive made all the amendments, that will be the alpha version so do let me know if there are any other changes needed. Have added to the public monday board as item #11
and also what do you all think about
lowering the initial deposit amount to say 1K and total deposit amount to 3K for all other proposals
for EGF, was thinking of lowering the deposit amount to 1K and 10% of whatever is requested.
so if you are requesting for anything up till 10K, you will just need the initial deposit.
beyond that, say you are requesting 100K, you will need a total of 10K. (if quite a number of you agree, then we will do some research in making this happen)
this ensures that there is enough community support if the proposer does not have enough funding.
and also ensures that proposers will give a bit more thought about how much they actually need.
the more you request for, the more FX you will need to have. this ensures stability of the system and prevents outsiders who are not part of the network to come in and game the system.
good points raised @Superbit123. idea is to put this on our github and let any proposer fork it. that way everything is transparent and available online. in terms of tracking, idea again is to put it on github to track the milestones and to share the repo of the proposer.
From what I understand, the proposers would still need to deposit fx to get the funding. Hoped the committee would make the final decision but I do understand the need for it.
Just my thoughts:
FOR ON-CHAIN PROJECTS ONLY
Instead of losing their deposit, why don’t we lock up the deposited fx for a certain time period if the proposal fails
– i.e. if deposit was 10,000 fx, the proposer loses 10% (1000 fx) and 90% (9000 fx) gets locked.
Locked deposit would be released after 6-9 months in stages. Lets say, 50% on month 6 and the rest on month 9.
While locked, fx will be delegated to a company validator and the rewards would be used to replenish EGF/CSP/OTHERS.
If my calculations are correct, the rejected proposal would generate approximately [(4x180)+(4x270)] at current rate which is 1800 fx. Add to that another 1000 fx from lost deposit which would provide a total of 2800 fx into the pool.
– I was hoping if the team would set up a centralized marketing committee/team dedicated for reddit/fb/twitter/youtube ads.
– They could use these funds to boost posts from the community [like this one: (f(x)Variable Video!)] and create interest. With the funding, it can reach 10-100x more people.
– The community could vote on the forum every quarter to decide which platforms the marketing team/committee would mainly focus on with regards to these funds.
The reason behind locking up fx and not taking all of it from the proposer would be to encourage more participation while also ensuring that penalties are in place to filter out lowest quality proposals.
While studying the team’s studies of the other grants in the market, it’s clear that the average asking portion is $25,000 to $40,000. Even when the space has grown considerably but we also need to account for Ethereum Foundation size from the beginning, and they have only given Uniswap a major successful project $120,000 worth and others less than half of that.
I’d like to ask sensible applicants to go with this range, and ask for more when you complete it. I also want people to be sensible, if you simply vote yes a $1,000,000 request you are doing a deservice to us all. I would be very worried if proposals get $1,000,000 based on passion and a great whitepaper. I will vote with more caution with now on.
From what I understand, most institutional validators like Litecoin have a day job and I know institutional validators in other chains also most have a hands off mentality and they usually only vote on commission rate changes ala things that affect their profit. I think this is also sensible. If institutions vote it is great, but if they don’t I think we cannot forcefully on them.
Well said @SiverSurfer. anyways i will proceed to move #11 to the launch log. i think the structure and necessary documents are all already in place. you can view it here.
i have made some amendments to the team committee voting. instead of each committee member having 5% of the network, we’ll keep it simple and have the top 3 team validators vote. this will also reflect the composition of the network too. so in the future, as we become more decentralized, the team’s voting power will decrease which is our eventual goal
@Richard can I ask. To my understanding you are the person behind the Blindgotchi validator? Correct?
If so is your blindgotchi validator vote considered as team vote or independent vote?
.