Below is another alternative to the fund as proposed by @david in keybase chat
25% to Grin++ fund - 3 of 5 with members chosen by Tavarez & Myself, approved by the council. Funds focused on Grin++ development, documentation, testing, etc.
The Grin++ team would have full autonomy to manage the funds (public funding requests optional, not required), with some kind of quarterly financial transparency reports.
40% remaining to Council - Focused on Rust core codebase. This includes development tasks related to the rust core implementation, documentation, etc. & potentially research projects of interest (bulletproofs+, zk-rollups for IBD, etc.)
The council would have full autonomy to manage the funds (public funding requests optional, not required), with some kind of quarterly financial transparency reports.
35% remaining to Grin community/ecosystem fund - 4 of 6 with 3 members from the council & 3 from the community. Take volunteers for members. Final membership approved by council. (Possibility to rotate members?)
Funds focused largely on ecosystem projects (IronBelly, Niffler, Testnet Exchange, Coinswap, hardware wallet dev, etc.) & possible research & marketing (videos, whitepaper v2, etc)
At first start with public funding requests like today, but eventually move towards something like @joltz is suggesting to manage the fund
Feedback on this proposal can be tracked here and in @grincoin#community_fund keybase
I woud definetly not start with this number, but build it over time. So basically if we go to any other system, do it gradually.
I do think we need change, not sure yet which system. In any case, for changes we need clear guidelines, templates for proposal, screening by a second pair of eyes for proposals ets.
Whether it is this proposal or:
For now any split fund proposal is a good idea, whether it is this one or the one from Trump. I think that whether Grin++ will have its own fund or if it will befunded by either or both the Rust council or the Community council, it would be good to have some funding alocated to Grin++ and possible UX trials that are more suited to be first tested and implemented in Grin++ than they would be in the Rust node and wallet implementation. For me I am neutral on whehter that has to go through as seperate Grin++ council or any other council. I think support will be there anyhow. Maybe for now two councils would be better, since three councils might devide the community to much.
On the long run I do think it would be good to slowly progress towards more strucutred application proces such the unified gran application platform.
I support a higher percentage going to the core team than what is proposed and I know how great your work has been for GRIN but I do not support the Grin++ team having full autonomy to manage the funds.
Would you support a higher amount of ‘allocated’ money (so not send), if it would be managed and be part of the fund for the Community Council, so much broader representation than just Grin++?
In my opinion Grin++ should simply be part of the ‘Community Council’, and the community council might have a significant amount of money allocated to it, but only receive it when requests are actually coming in. To make another large multi-Sig wallet holding large parts of the fund before any actual request are y coming in only provides more risk and overhead,