I like this post, well done putting it together.
I think the biggest issue with the whole project is the lack of direction. People have their own interpretations of what Grin is, so we get pulled in different directions and it’s hard to come to a consensus on many aspects, including development. Which I guess is also the beauty of the project.
Re CC Spending guidelines/ CC Role Definition
-
Spending guidelines should be reviewed. Happy to see suggestions made here. I like what @renzokuken has suggested. For me, the key thing about spending is that it’s inline with the original donors request:
-
My opinion re the CC role is still what you’ve quote me saying
I would also suggest a periodic review of CC members, so being on the CC becomes an elected role with a “term” period ( This in itself should be more motivation for CC members) new members then have the opportunity to join at the end of each term. We don’t want the CC to turn into some old boys club where the wider community feels let down and is questioning our transparency. This would also make the whole community more accountable as a whole.
I also think the CC should have an elected President or someone incharge of overseeing everything, including the GK duties. Like a stripped down role of what Daniel used to do( which for reference was more than what the CC paid for the trial period with 2x GKs and one of the reasons why I approved the requests). Having someone akin to a President seems the best way to improve transparency and hold the CC more accountable. It would be great if we had people step up and do mundane admin tasks without funding, but the reality is most projects pay people just to manage their discord/ telegram groups. Although clearly Grin is vastly different to most projects.
Spending/ bad decision making
-
For me the purpose of CC having funds was so the community could fund development outside of the core protocol and to allow Grin to be more experimental. But outside of Grin++ there hasn’t really been any direct funding requests for dev work( CC picked up the funding for CoinSwap, but this was something OC would have (likely ) funded aswell, we just took action on it)
-
The Miners have turned into a logistical nightmare and was poorly executed by CC and ultimately a mistake on our behalf( at least so far) . It was a large financial outlay aswell, fortunately BTC was at much higher price when this was executed. It’s also not as large of an outlay when you consider we’d previously paid the equivalent of 120k per year for a fulltime rust dev. Part of the logic with the mining farm was that we wanted to encourage funding requests in Grin or atleast in a % of Grin ( Many used to complain about all the funding being granted in BTC, that it was misaligned and that devs should be funded in Grin). The intention of having the miners, was so we would have Grin available to do this, as opposed to having to buy it on market.
-
Even with clear guidelines, It’s still be hard to gauge on what should be granted funding, especially with the ongoing funding to Grin++. How do we ascertain what is justified/ what is best for the project? It seems many are split on their opinions here and there’s no right or wrong answer.
Commitment/ Engagement/ Decision making
It’s hard to find community members who actively engaged in the project, motivated enough to always been around to offer their opinion and actually take action. On a personal note( As someone in the Grin community) I’d like to see people like @renzokuken @vegycslol @johndavies24 on the CC, perhaps even yourself. CC needs more technical people to help make better funding decisions and needs long term community members with conviction to help shake things up.
^Obviously @Cobragrin aswell