This post is a proposal to freeze any future expenses from the CC fund until clear decisions are made regarding the responsibilities and roles, enforcement of the spending guidelines and clear and transparent decision making about the follow-up processes.
The proposal does not include the role of one GK which is necessary for transparency and the accessibility of information for the community as specified in the spending guidelines.
Just to clarify, this is not a personal attack against the members of the CC, 5/6 are volunteers and I believe that most of them want the best for the community, but without clear rules and responsibilities the road is easily opened and there is no way back once the funds run out.
Table of Contents
-
Basic facts to make things clear
-
Spending guidelines
-
CC role definition
-
Enforcing the spending guidelines and follow-up
-
Solution
-
Final note
Basic facts to make things clear:
All the information in this post is collected from the available public records of the CC repo and this forum. If you find any mistakes, outdated or missing information, please let me know and I will update it.
The CC Fund received 33 BTC from the original Grin Development Fund. In almost 19 months, the CC fund has spent 9.13858939 BTC which is 27.7% of the total CC funds.
Also, the CC committed to paying ÂŁ25,000 for CoinSwap Milestone 3 once itâs done.
During this time the CC approved and funded 25 requests for 9 applicants.
The charts show the distribution in BTC as paid by the spending log although some payments were made in GRIN coins so the total funding should be higher.
| Category | requests | BTC | USD | % of total |
|----------|-----------|------------|-------------|------------|
| GRIN++ | 5 | 4.42621146 | $108,430.37 | 48.4% |
| GK | 12 | 1.54663826 | $37,927.10 | 16.9% |
| Mining | 2 | 1.10501997 | $52,531.99 | 12.1% |
| CoinSwap | 2 | 1.01527389 | $30,755.22 | 11.1% |
| BTC-GRIN | 2 | 0.54550658 | $27,539.69 | 6.0% |
| Bounties | 2 | 0.49991923 | $11,418.00 | 5.5% |
There was never an official tracking process for the funded tasks so I manually checked for updates for each one and marked it, âIs this request fully completed and the benefits are transparent and clear? Yes or No.â
Total of 25 funding requests approved but only 18 can be easily defined as completed according to the spending guidelines (as far as I know with my limited technical knowledge so the number may even be lower)
These are 7 funded requests that cannot be defined as completed right now because is not possible to understand what exactly was funded or why and how it serves the community:
-
2 were abandoned (0.30840909 BTC / $6,092.14)
-
1 is currently unclear (1.86553872 BTC / $31,430.00)
-
4 missing transparency reports or public records for follow-up how they used and how they serve the community today (1.65052655 BTC / $80,071.95)
Abandoned:
| Date | spend description | BTC | USD |
|------------|----------------------------------|------------|-----------|
| 2022-05-14 | @jankie Mar-May 2022 funding | 0.07206201 | $2,112.14 |
| 2022-12-25 | @satoshcrat Jan-Apr 2023 funding | 0.23634708 | $3,980.00 |
| Total | | 0.30840909 | $6,092.14 |
Unclear:
| Date | spend description | BTC | USD |
|------------|----------------------------------|------------|------------|
| 2022-12-22 | @dtavares Jan-April 2023 funding | 1.86553872 | $31,430.00 |
| Total | | 1.86553872 | $31,430.00 |
The status is still unclear. The funding request specifies 3 tasks: CLI, API and documentation, but from the discussion and the new âProgress Tracking of Funded Requestsâ it is not clear what the status is right now before a new funding request was submitted.
Missing reports for transparency:
| Date | spend description | BTC | USD |
|------------|---------------------------|------------|------------|
| 2021-12-22 | BTC-GRIN conversion | 0.50000000 | $25,756.42 |
| 2022-02-27 | BTC-GRIN conversion | 0.04550658 | $1,783.54 |
| 2022-11-23 | community farm expenses | 0.13977543 | $2,265.00 |
| 2021-10-21 | Community miners purchase | 0.96524454 | $50,266.99 |
| Total | | 1.65052655 | $80,071.95 |
The âBTC-GRIN conversionâ missing records how and why the GRIN coins were used, the GRIN wallet report is messy, outdated and contains errors (revenues marked as expenses so when calculating the balance I got a negative number -240K GRIN)
The Community farm has been discussed many times but the Miners purchase and expenses were not documented clearly so I was unable to verify this due to a lack of transparency (âMining reportâ or something organized and accessible to the community), how many miners were purchased? How many of them are active right now? testnet or mainnet? the g1 has been inactive for a while, what is the plan and who is responsible? What are the monthly expenses/maintenance costs? What is the revenue?
Spending guidelines:
Even if we canât agree on all the expenses above we can all agree that some of the previous funding goes against the official spending guidelines, the quotes parts in bold:
Decision Process: ⌠The Community Council will never make a decision without having clear:
How the expense will be helpful for Grin, How much funds will be spent. If the expense will be a one time or require multiple rounds of financing?
Some rules will be established during the discussions to clarify how the accountability process will be.
We need clear decisions to be made regarding the responsibilities and roles, enforcement of the spending guidelines and clear transparent decision making about the follow-up processes.
Reporting: The result of all funding decisions will be published in the meeting notes found in the Grin Community Fund repository. It is mandatory to publish a detailed spending log of all transactions made in and out of the funds.
Some of the funding reports were published over a year after the funding made, the GRIN wallet report are still outdated and since the meeting notes duty removed from @cobragrin duties the meetings notes have not been published again for months until now, I explained the timeline here.
CC role definition:
When the CC fund started we were all full of excitement and felt that finally the community will be able to fund what we want and need but the CC role definition and the responsibilities are still unclear and over time things have changed, most of the CC members got busy with life and thatâs fine, but weâve reached a point where things need to be clear, what exactly are the CC duties? just keyholders or active duties to enforce the guidelines?
The CC members explained some of these challenges several time
(Full long discussions here, here and here):
Donât get me wrong, a lot of the approved requests had a positive impact on the community, for example: the mobile wallet by @davidtavarez , the CC website by @stakerv, the bounty by @nicolasflamel and @Cobragrin as a GK who is always ready to take on more responsibility.
But what about the wasted funds?
GK roles: 2 funded GK abandoned and none of the CC members even noticed or asked. I had to push again and again to get an âofficial refund requestâ for something so obvious, and actually looking back I have to ask, why did we even need 2 GK in the same period of time? It doesnât make sense after reading the meeting notes.
Community miners: the miners purchased at the highest price ever over a year before even being placed in the facility, The G1 has not been inactive for a while, and there will always be new issues that require some kinds of skills, ongoing expenses and responsibility.
We talked about this topic on 2023-04-29, @davidtavarez confirmed that:
âMaybe spending on ASICs wasnât the smartest idea, ASICs were bought in the worst momentâ
Have we really considered the long term responsibility of running a mining community farm before spending over 12% (1.10501997 BTC / $52,531.99) of our approved funding (not including GRIN payments and ongoing maintenance costs)?
Enforcing the spending guidelines and follow-up:
The follow-ups for each new funding request is almost impossible right now, the follow-ups and the review process requires time, tech skills, clear responsibility and equal enforcement.
For example: I brought the follow-up progress issue to the CC meeting (2023-4-25), the original idea was to follow-up the GK tasks, but in the end I suggested adding to the GK duties follow-up for each funded task.
@davidtavarez and @Anynomous as CC members supported it, and @Cobragrin created the progress tracking file as agreed but when he asked @davidtavarez one week later (2023-5-2) to update the status of his ongoing funded tasks he resisted:
CC meeting (2023-4-25):
**l33d4n** : We skipped the first item on the agenda list. I would like to suggest adding to the GK tasks follow-up for every funded task. Once the CC approves funding, it will be the GK responsibility to follow up and update (on a monthly basis?) what the status is.
**dtavarez** : Iâll a PR with that suggestion to add it to the repo officially.
**l33d4n** : This way we will avoid such situations in the future.
**dtavarez** : I support it
**cekickafa** : yes, i support alsođ
**anynomous** : I am fine with it. Just a few bullet points will do, but it will avoid that nothing happens without no one knowing about it.
**dtavarez** : Or @cekickafa will you add it to the documents?
**cekickafa** : yes i can.
đ anonymous, dtavarez
**dtavarez** : Thank you. That was easy. Something else?
One week later (2023-5-2):
Solution:
Freeze any future expenses from the CC fund until clear decisions are made regarding the responsibilities and roles, enforcement of the spending guidelines and clear and transparent decision making about the follow-up processes.
For necessary or urgent developments that is not part of the OC responsibility, it can be discussed specifically and we can offer a bounty with a clear definition and responsibility for the end result.
At the same time we can try to understand together how to:
As long as the wallets are working and the nodes are running, everything will be fine and I can assure you that the end users wonât even notice it.
The proposal does not include the role of one GK which is necessary for transparency and the accessibility of information for the community as specified in the spending guidelines to close the transparency gap in all the missing reports and meetings notes.
It would be great if community members who have taken part in previous/ongoing bounties could share their thoughts about the model and their experience in the discussion. @Nicolasflamel @renzokuken @Scilio
Final note:
My motivation behind this post is to make sure that the funds are used in the best way that benefits the community and are not wasted or abused without transparent follow-up process and clear responsibilities.
I know this is a sensitive topic but letâs try to have a productive and objective discussion based on the facts above.