My guy! I’m not dating you! I’m not gay, do you, but I’m not dating you.
Your get a life replies and these replies are not useful and they make you look bad. Stick to the facts and don’t make it personal
6 Likes
Well, during my years contributing to Grin I have openly spoken at length all the time about my work, the what, the how and the why. If I have any specific questions I collect all the feedback I need to continue. Always open in all channels to offer support for everything I release, right?
If someone says, “David’s support needs to be stopped,” I have no problem with that, I move on. But when they go to the extreme of creating fake accounts just to take it against me, it’s personal. Unreal, and the only valid response is to mock the obsession. There is no need to pretend it is not personal, no one spent so much time to attack another person.
@Trinitron and others never join a CC meeting to discuss anything, but to attack me personally, they have all the time in the world. Why? clearly an obsession, and I will not date @Trinitron just to be clear.
During last funding period, I’m not sure if we would notice.
Well, this is a very detailed post @l33d4n , and it is normal to seek answers to your questions as a responsible community member.
As GK my observation and toughts about this, mistakes and typos can be undone, review and development can be slow. But what can’t be reversed is funds and the trust in the community.
There are valid FACTS above and can be discussed for days. I will not quote anybody or reply. Simply focus on what to do.
For conclusion key points and ''What TO DO ‘’
-
Grincc members acts volunteer, they do it in their free time, some are may be busy sometimes.
For getting burden off them about endless administrative stuff, about merging some certain tasks related to docs, governance notes github priveleges of (docs,agenda) can be handed to Gk. This increase my responsibility but also transparency and accountability. PR dont pile up, becuz it is hard to follow-up when not done in time.FUNDS
-
Past merits lost its meaning when current tasks are not done. Becuz we hardly enforce people to refund if things not done or half done.
-
Spending guidelines are clear, but it seems we need to readjust payment order.
Progress of funded request track is template for this. There should be no payment if the work is not completed according to this PR.
It’s as simple as that: no code/task, no release, no payment.
Code > Release > Payment 
.
Without to progress report tracking, no procceed to payment draft by GRINCC.
Protecting the fund and keep development ongoin is possible this way. Rules apply to all members, new or old. This way things are under control.
- Bounties works this model as you say; @scilio @renzokuken @nicolasflamel contributions are valid examples.
How to Apply it;
Any Community member can suggest/ involve bounty for GRIN development,
we discuss / State the goal,
CC approve or not.
Payment is done after if bounty completed. If bugs occur during those bounty developments, again its a win-win situation that bugs revealed and Fix & proceed.
Bounties can get us more developers, we are crying ‘’ lack of man power’’ since 2020, we gotta push this idea. I really became sick of ‘’ we dont have enough man power ‘’ for this amazing GRIN MimbleWimble tech. I strongly support it.
GRIN needs development, everything else is DRAMA.
Miners
It was discussed at keybase meeting openly, decision made and the result we own some hardwares to pay and use GRIN as MOE. I dont have the details of how they operate. But those miners belong to the community.
For better governance and decision making;
-
Transparency needed, not only GRINCC but community should be responsible, community needs to cooperate and participate more as @l33d4n do. If community checks and balance, GRIN is healthy. This is the only solution for effective development and governance of GRIN.
-
Concentrating on what is best for the entire GRIN community, not just for individuals. GRIN needs building, not drama.
-
For better governance and decision making, everybody is responsible, should be transparent with his work or mind and collaborate with each other. GRIN is opensource, follow its idea. See: Bitcoin.
When Grin grows, we can all grow with it.
7 Likes
I see your point and I’m defending you.
He explained to you why you see this. The commits aren’t pushed to the account you’re looking at. Probably to another account with the repo cloned or held locally until he’s comfortable pushing them. But I agree with you that it would be more ideal to see that progress was being made even if it isn’t up to standard to get pushed to this repo
Maybe he’s been working without committing? In any case I feel like having a developer (even if there is no work to show for it for a while) is better than not having a developer.
I’d like to thank Leedan on creating this post, including the informative graphics and bringing to attention a concern of many community members. This post shows that the Grin community is alive and well and that we can come together to discuss and hopefully resolve the issue of funding and expectations in deliverables.
The original post shows that the funding of projects and their completion remains a legitimate concern with the outcomes of 42% of the BTC expenses on projects since 10/2021 resulting in work that is either missing reports, is of unclear status or has been abandoned. Breaking this down by task shows things in a better light, leading some to the conclusion that funding by task may be a better way of making progress with projects. This has yet to be determined.
We should all be appreciative of the prior work done on Grin++, particularly that of Dtavarez. His prior work has cemented his reputation in the community, as a dev and as someone who has the best interest for Grin. Nonetheless the concern for funding of a new project with the pre-existing one outstanding is legitimate. The governance and existence of Grin would be put into question with a dwindling fund and no visible progress in development occuring.
Once you have accepted funds it is reasonable to expect to be asked about the deliverables. The question of commits not being pushed due to developer not feeling them ready is understandable - but then what should the community expect from a project that has been funded? A code of conduct or process for project funding with deliverables needs to be clarified. The question remains of whether all devs should be held to the same standards.
Finally, we should refrain from taking things personally (which can be understandably difficult how much work some have contributed) and should avoid personal attacks - remember why we are here - to make Grin the best decentralized, privacy preserving electronic currency.
4 Likes
Why not tell the guy who went on a rant about fud and fake accounts on here?
1 Like
First of all, thank you for writing this very nice and clear summary of financial status. I really appreciate all the work and efforts you put into it.
Since I have the chance to have my voice heard on this, I will repeat what I have already communicated at least once during various meetings.
I am a strong advocate of bounties, but I don’t believe in the bounties system we currently use. The “apply for funding” model is not an effective way of funding projects for ツ community.
Before I dive into solution I advocate, few words about my experience with grants both as receiver and elector. In 2021 I received a grant from MINA Foundation for participation in their zkApps builders program Meet the zkApp Builder — Marek Narozniak | Mina Protocol, later in 2022 I built client-side zero-knowledge a smart contract generator application called “MAC!” mac.sqrtxx.com on behalf of the “zkIgnite Cohort 0” grants program and finally, in early 2023 I was working as an elector, helping to distribute grants for zkIgnite Cohort 1. I distributed around 16K US$ worth of vallue among various smart contract projects.
Given the above experience, here are my thoughts on how we could improve how funding works for ツ projects.
The biggest and most significant problems are:
- Reviewing grant applications,
- Estimating if those are reasonable,
- Mentoring / reviewing the work done, keeping track of it, managing it,
Currently, the Community Council is using the regular funding scheme, under which one applies for funding, describes the project, council votes, locks funds, then work is done and funds get disbursed.
Solution 1: Retroactive grants
This is an alternative way of funding, it is more resource efficient and suitable for all the small projects. It is also practiced at MINA Foundation and works more or less as follows:
- Someone does something, could be even very small like write a blog post, make a meme or fix a bug in the wallet.
- A grant period gets opened, could be yearly, quaterly, monthly, weekly… Users who found something cool that was done can nominate the receiver for a grant. Someone could also nominate him/herself.
- At the end of the period all the nominations get reviewed, adequate amount of funds gets locked for the grantees.
- The grantees have certain amount of time to pick their prize.
Why is it more efficient? There is no point (3), no mentoring, no managing. Work is already done, it is easier to estimate the resources that have been spent rather than estimate resources that need to be spent (if regular grants are used instead of retroactive grants).
Solution 2: Hire community electors and mentors
This is more resource costly and also difficult, but suitable for funding bigger projects such as potential ツ-based start-up company. Full disclaimer, I also “steal” this idea from MINA Foundation as myself I was hired as an elector for zkIgnite Cohort 1 incubator program.
The role of electors is voting on grants distribution. The role of mentors is reviewing the distributed grants if they are spent according to the plan.
It works as follows:
- Grant period gets announced.
- Sufficient amount of time in advance job offers for electors and mentors are announced. Preferably to community members who have adequate background to serve in such a role.
- Grant applications are submitted by the deadline. Electors review it.
- There are multiple rounds of voting, each elector has certain sum to distribute. The last voting is final. Between the voting rounds meetings are organised to discuss the proposal, in a similar way as ツ CC meetings are arranged.
- The funded proposals get publicly announced.
- Teams that have been awarded are beginning their work. They have regular meetings with mentors who review their progress and write reports on that. Based on those reports the grants are distributed, either later, either during the work (for example to cover expenses such as server infrastructure costs etc).
- At the end the program final work is being reviewed and locked funds are disbursed.
The process described above has a potential to become decentralised.
My experience with ツ bounties
I would also like to share how our process affected myself. I personally applied for a bounty regarding the Telegram bot.
I nearly completed my work, I was already at the stage of running a prototype trying deposits and withdrawals, but due to bug in the core wallet API Owner API finalize_tx responds with Fee: Missing fee fields error · Issue #635 · mimblewimble/grin-wallet · GitHub I could not complete my bounty, not without redesigning most of it from scratch and dropping some of the features.
If this was a retroactive grant we wouldn’t have locked funds and blocked because of something that can’t be completed.
If this was a grant program reviewed by electors they probably would catch the proposed design can’t be implemented due to limitations of core wallet owner’s API.
16 Likes
3 Likes
Thanks @l33d4n for compiling all the data, I am sure it took some time to prepare it. I will update finance section of grincc.mw with data/tables available in grincc/finance repo. If you allow I can add categorical distribution of spended funds and some other data.
I also was founded as a grounds keeper for 2 terms (2 x 3 months). I realized that I did not prepare a progress report for my second term. I apologize for this as I agree that all the work done should be reported clearly and available to community. I will post it but did a quick check of my request and can say all the tasks has been fulfilled.
✓ Compilation of Community Council meeting notes
✓ Management of agenda issues
✓ Publishment of grincc website
✓ Adding search functionality to grincc website
✓ Adding an On-going projects section to grincc website
✓ Maintanence and polish of grincc website (add new meeting notes, update hub links, add images/visuals etc)
✓ Carrying out other tasks given by Community Council.
My funding has ended on 2022 february and till this day, I have been maintaining and updating it (github link)
I also want to mention projects page on grincc.mw which was designed to follow on-going and finished projects.
Currently a funded project card consists of following data
- Project name
- Applicant’s name/handler
- Short description
- Deliverables/Milestones as a checklist
- Approval date
- Funding amount
- Forum link for request
- Github link of project
If this data can be prepared and regulary updated as a part of funding system,. it would be easy for me to update website regularly. I think a sumamry page like this may show what projects are on development to people outside grin community, which would help extend our reach to new developers and users.
5 Likes
So far you are the only one who offered to take a miner and pay electricityt (for testnet miner). We have a deal with the mining farm. We pay 30% of mined Grin for electricity and housing. It is a fair and good deal IMO. If anyone thought buying so many miners was wrong, they should have said so when it was discussed on the forum and KeyBase, that is what these discussions are for.
2 Likes
I said your plan was wrong. It clearly was wrong. We should have only bought the number of miners for community members willing to host the miner and donate the electricity but everyone was worried about accountability… Kind of ironic
2 Likes
Several people voiced opinions that it was wrong. In fact, the idea was far from unanimously agreed upon within the community.
1 Like
there will be times when community won’t unanimously agree on something (probably 90% of the decisions) and CC members are the ones making the decisions. Sometimes they will decide correctly, sometimes incorrectly, that’s just how things are, doesn’t matter who the members are, everyone makes mistakes. So i believe that blaming is pointless, anyone is free to give them an advice on what they think should be changed and i’m sure they would be happy to hear some constructive criticism. You also need to keep in mind that sometimes the decision is correct (with the data that you have at the time of making that decision), but it turns out that a different decision would lead to a better situation.
2 Likes
@Anynomous was implying that nobody objected. I totally understand and accept that people will never unanimously agree, but lets not kid ourselves… there were plenty of objectors to the idea.
1 Like
I did not suggest no one objected. I actually argued against buying so many at the time but I respect the process. So when the majority was in favour of buying bulk I accepted that decision even though I personally would have preferred to buy only a few.
In any case blaming or regretting afterwards is useless, just each time we try to make the best decision with what we know. And with we I mean the community.
3 Likes