Request for funding @jaspervdm, Nov-Jan 2020/21

@johndavies24 has a point. As long as others, preferably at least two long standing members of the community and or council, can verify there was good reason for the absence of Jasper, I have no problem continuing the funding.
However, it would be good to sort clear the air by having some people “vouch for his absence” just to make clear to those who do not know @jaspervdm that he did not drink cocktails on an island while receiving funding :wink:. This would be good to make clear that those who receive funding are accountable and checked by others in the community and do not have some special position where they automatically receive funding.

Imagine you decided to not show up to work for 5 months without any kind of communication. Why would you act like this is not a big deal? Of course it’s okay if he has personal things to take care of, but it takes just a few minutes to communicate that with the community that is funding you. Jasper is a brilliant guy and great developer, but the fact that he cbf to take 5 minutes from his day just to inform the community what’s going on reflects poorly on him, and we shouldn’t act like it’s not a big deal.

I had written a long list of reasons why accepting this funding request seems like a bad idea, but I don’t want to tarnish his reputation in pursuit of protecting the council’s funds. The bottom line though, is that choosing to fund Jasper means we’ve lowered our standards from “Let’s fund people who are passionate about Grin and already contributing so they have more time to work on Grin” to “Let’s fund developers who probably wouldn’t be here otherwise, and may or may not hang around once we pay them.” Have things really gotten that bad?

Regardless of whether or not the council chooses to fund Jasper, it should go without saying that he should be paid month to month, not 3 months in advance.


My view is that he doesn’t need to share anything regarding his life with the community. Should he have said something when he was not around? Yes, he definitely should. But this isn’t a good enough reason for a switch to post-pay. I’d be ok with paying him per month.

I can’t speak whether he would or would not contribute if he wasn’t paid, I don’t know him enough to tell that, my impression was that he built some stuff without being paid (though I’m not 100% sure).

It certainly is enough reason, but to be clear, I was not actually suggesting post-pay. I meant something more along the lines of what was done for @Paouky.

None of us can say for sure, but his contributions dropped drastically once Binance funding stopped and it became clear 713 wouldn’t be profitable, and he had no contributions at all from mid-November until just 2 weeks before requesting funding the first time.

FWIW, I don’t personally think it’s a necessity for funding that someone would be a contributor even without that funding. I was okay with Ivan’s one-time request, even though it was not clear he would hang around if his request was not approved. But what we’re talking about here is a recurring, full-time position, working on the core project. To me, it seems obvious that you would want to have someone in that position who is passionate about the success of Grin. I’m not convinced Jasper fits the description.

Anyhow, I’m not going to keep defending my arguments here, since it involves speaking negatively. I have nothing against Jasper personally, and love the work that he’s done with Grin. He’s easily one of the brightest and most talented people we’ve got, and has a better understanding of bulletproofs, signatures, swaps, etc. than most of us ever will. I just feel this request is poorly-timed, and would rather see him take some time to rebuild some trust first.

Point is he is back and he wants to contribute. He has a past with Grin 2 years almost and credit in the community.

if he was a new guy and did same thing AWL,i would agree.But this is Jasper,which he has a past with Grin.And since Lehnberg has contact with him all the time,this is a privayc project,i dont wanna deep dive in details,no need to openly discuss certain things.

And if David has left without saying a word,and turn back after 1 year and want to contribute,i would be happy to.Becuz we know him from past.Being from the family and a newcomer is different.

Dont divide,unite.Or we are doomed!


Having worked with Jasper on projects quite a lot in the past years, it troubles me to see a mixed response to his funding request. We should be welcoming him back with open arms in my opinion.

That said, I can understand why there are concerns, but I think they are misplaced. I want to share some of my personal thoughts on what’s been said in this thread:

  1. There’s been no crime commited here. I was in contact with Jasper early on, and he made clear he would do good on his commitment one way or another. It took some time, but he came back, and did exactly just that, as promised. What else is there really to discuss?

  2. This is not employment. Making the analogy of “what would happen if you did XYZ at a job” doesn’t make sense to me. There’s no sick leave. There’s no support or health care. You don’t have a manager, and you don’t have any obligations or answer to anyone. You make a request for funding to go work on certain things, and then it’s up to you to deliver against that. That’s it.

  3. There are comments above about how Jasper “should have communicated”, how “reasonable” of a request that would have been, and stating he was “clearly capable” of doing so. Based on him forking a github repo? As a community, I’d like to see us speculating less about people’s abilities and personal situations, do less “detective work” when there’s no crime committed, and instead spend more time constructively trying to improve Grin and grow our community. To me personally, it feels incredibly off-putting to see a bunch of random people here make claims about other people’s personal states during periods where they’ve explicitly taken a leave of absence. It’s not something I would like to see happen if I ever had to make the same request. I urge you to stop with this, give people space, and try to be a positive force instead.

  4. The timings of Jasper’s re-appearance for sure can appear suspicious, but the fact of the matter is that Jasper had been talking about coming back a long time before that vote ever took place. Others can attest to that. His return was already in the works, and I personally urged him to come back before he was voted off, as I thought that him staying on the council would be a net positive for the project. And so he did.

  5. If we want to meet the scope we’ve set out for v5, there’s a lot of work that needs to be done. I don’t see how we could do it without Jasper. Why would it be better for the project to not have him work these next few months?

  6. Regarding being paid 3 months in advance or month-by-month, this is a complete red herring to me. I’m sure Jasper would agree to either. But I for one trust him and am happy he’s back, and I don’t see a need to trust him any less than before, or anyone else. Again, we seem to forget that he actually came through on his previous funding request. I’m sure he’ll come through now too. There might be reasons for why we should pay everyone on a monthly basis, but I see no reason to make Jasper the exception here. The concern with Paouky was that he had not made a single contribution of note prior to his request being approved.

If you need anyone vouching for Jasper, I wholeheartedly do so, for whatever that is worth. When he took a break, I asked him early on what was up, he gave me an answer, he promised to come back and do right by him, and he did just that. We were in touch throughout this period.

He has my full support, and I hope he has yours as well.


Works for me, anyone who knew about his absence and reasons who can provide a second vouch so we can close this discussion knowing we as community ‘verified’ and not blindly ‘trusted’ as Bitcoin thought us. The questions raised are mostly not directed on Jasper personally but are questions on a procedural level. As community we decided recently that we wanted less bureaucracy in governance. Keeping that in mind, some voucher and delivering the work promised should be enough to trust Jasper, for me it is enough.

Thank you Daniel and this is all wich matters to me.
I fully support his request.

I am not against this funding request for two reasons: I stand by my original defense of his absence and do not think a single event (unless egregious, which this does not appear to be) should hold a lot of weight. The other reason articulated by @lehnberg #5, we have no choice. I also think his contributions to grin have been indispensable and all the devs deserve their share of the funds.

That being said, the situation and the optics of the situation are not ideal and certainly merit a discussion. It would seem wrong to be entirely silent about the situation. Which leads to @lehnberg #2 scenario:

This seems very flawed and as if you are suggesting there is no mechanism for enforcing accountability (and no need for it). Clearly, if you do not deliver the community will require answers, certainly if communications and funding requests continue. Accountability comes here, but it is complicated with core/council members as they have voting rights on each others funding which creates an unavoidable conflict of interest. I think trusthworthy individuals with high integrity would feel obliged to uphold their word to the best of their abilities and take responsibility for any failures. This is referring to the odd stance that there is no one to answer to and no mechanism for accountability and not to suggest that Jasper doesn’t fit the description of a trusthworthy individual.

This seems off because there was no request to take a leave of absence. Maybe if Daniel is the boss of all funded individuals and their progress reports are sent directly to Daniel this would make sense. But I think no one wants that, which means communication to the community would be the only logical mechanism for communicating the leave of absence.

This also doesnt add up because the request to remove him was made by a core/council member and it remained on the agenda as such. If I recall, Jasper’s reappearance was at that very meeting. Not so sure why so many backdoor conversations have to occur and who is privy to what (this concern extends beyond this specific topic).

The progress reports are smaller and less informative than those from everyone else. Maybe they are sufficient, I was more concerned with public discussions in total. Similar to the topic above, it appears that he has had a lot of technical conversations about what he is doing with Antioch. Maybe they are referring to their comments on the github PR, but it is just unclear how many core/council conversations occur in private that are not private in material (strictly referring to topics that would be appropriate for the grin community).

My concern remains and I will pose it as a question:
What are reasonable metrics for rebuilding trust and were they met? Is it sufficient to reappear the day you are being removed from council, do what you were paid to do 5 months ago, and request your new funding before finishing the time remaining on the prior funding?

I honestly do not know the answer to those questions but the latter feels like “no” even though it seems unfair to say “no” if I cannot answer the first question.


If you’re taking money from an open source project then you’re accountable to an open source community. Surely this is common sense? At the end of the day Jasper not publicly communicating with the community about his absence was poor etiquette. Let’s not sugar coat it. Pubic communication is like best practices 101 for anyone working on an open source project.

Remember that time Igno only communicated with members of that council that he needs to be away for personal reason and would be absent for a few months, possibly more…Well It kind of seemed like that for awhile.


Thank you for your services. Considering the fact that you were absent the most of the time I don’t think there is any benefit in continuation of the funding.

I wish you best of luck.

I have to agree with the comments made by @johndavies24 @Neo.

But I’d like to echo a few statements.

Therefore, it would be in the best interest of the project to accept his request, yet it doesn’t mean trust has been completely re-established. As much as Jasper is talented, capable and nice (which we all agree on), this is simply the reality. There was a worrying lack of communication. However, in light of the circumstances; we can, shall, and should grow past that.

I support this request :star2:


I suggest that he personally say something about this. @jaspervdm

September / oktober / november that is 3 months. He should request fund for: December January and February. Please get your months right.

I understand that free money can be easily given away as if it is nothing, but 10.000 euro in the Netherlands is enourmous number. For example our prime minister ( president ) is earning 6000 euros a month for being there and active 24 hours a day Jasper:

I know that grin can use jaspers help, but I am convinced that 4500 euro a month should be more then enough and fair also. In the end this is a opensource project not a milk cow that needs to be drained quickly. And if someone should earn a bigger reward then it is lehnberg for all of his work.


Just to be clear, his last funding request was March, April, May and it seems as if he left around mid April. Again, I’m not exactly sure what constitutes rebuilding trust, but I don’t think it makes sense to restart the clock on his last funding (by not allowing another request until Dec as you suggested).

We’ve also gone over the amounts requested many times and the 10k amount is fair. Sure there could be some regional variation but nothing like what you’re suggesting. Also, as Daniel noted, lots of things that a real job would provide do not exist here.

However, I hope those that get to vote on funding and have a conflict of interest do not remain publicly silent until voting day comes. This would further the concerns of their private chats and backroom deals.

The Community agrees that @jaspervdm is a valuable asset, he’s committed on bringing the hardest and coolest stuff that we all want to see in Grin, it is fully understandable the fact that he had to take some time, nobody is condemning him, we all humans. @jaspervdm doesn’t have to give any explanation regarding his personal life and he’s back… now, this decision should nonetheless remain rational, and should not constitute in any way a precedent for the future; I think we should not ignore that the Community is hurt and needs to heal, a decision regarding this, at least now, could be misinterpreted by the Community members.

In my opinion, the amount is fine, the committed work is fine too, I would like to have @jaspervdm back again for a long time period, honestly I do, but please, take your time, maybe one or two months could help regain the Community trust.

I personally have the feeling that a lot of comments come from people ( general ) that are totally out of touch with reality when it comes to money and salary payments and how much someone should earn or get, and trying to ignore some of the facts. (?)

In the old days we would work for the value of our assets we owned from the project. The more people did for the project, the more the asset becomes valuable ( with a bit of luck )

A few things to look at:

1: 13 contributions since september 7th until october the 8th

1.1: Request for funding @jaspervdm, March-May 2020

8 september he posted for the first time again ( scroll down )

so the funding request should for the months: December / January / February ( correct me if i am wrong. )

2: Stop paying people upfront, but pay each month. (?) This will motivate more and you will get at least valuable feedback back in order to get your next payment. No more instant disappearing or waiting what happened.

3: You can never ever compare peoples salary/work on blockchain / open source projects with working for a company. First of all working for projects like Grin gives you absolutely freedom, no boss, you pay no taxes ( in the netherlands when you get paid in bitcoin ) and the only obligation you have is doing what you like the most.

4: I bet jasper will accept lower payments also, like mentioned in 3, but for some reason 10.000 usd has been widely been accepted and debated and therefore being used as a standard number for the requests. I think it is always good to debat this more and read what open source is all about:

5: next week this funding request will be approved anyway, but at least i wrote my part and hopefully someone will read this in the near future and agrees a bit with me. Hello future reader.

1 Like

Wow, a lot of old discussion come back here :sweat_smile:.

  1. What should a Grin developer earn Yes there has been a lot of discussion what a Grin developer should earn. We discussed this a couple of months back and agreed that there is no easy standard. Indeed for Dutch standards 10.000 dollar is a lot, for US standards it is normal or even low for high end software engineers. Also different opinions exist on whether a high salary is good or bad in an open source project. Lets keep that a separate discussion, or continue it where it was last time:
    "Devs are paid too much"
  2. The payment: itself should be fine if someone delivers what he or she promises. I understood Jasper did commit what he had planned to commit. In the end payment is for doing work on the project, as long as he came through on that “trust” in Jaspers capabilities should be there.
  3. Trust in the person. Communication is key here. Many times in the past at some level “trust” has been temporary lost or disagreement has existed because of poor communication. Actually it is mostly just a feeling than very objectively problem. Therefore let’s decide to make it a habit to communicate leaves of absence or other major disruptions to the community. This can be done without giving any details on the reason, just a heads up for the community should be fine.
  4. Accountability Everyone who receives funding is and should be held accountable. Jasper is no exception. Some improvements can be made on standardizing how people are held accountable. Biweekly updates I think is a good start, so again, communicate is key.

Lastly, let us avoid dramatizing the whole thing and losing to much energy where it could have been spend better elsewhere. There is a hard fork to prepare and Jasper did not commit any major crimes, he delivered what he promises. let’s just give him a scolding for being a lazy communicator and ask him to do a better job next time to avoid “losing trust” . If there will more drama, maybe we should change the logo :joy:
:grin: => :cry:


Dramatizing(?), i think it is good to debat it without naming it to try stop further discussions. Some people do care, others less.

@siNix Do not get me wrong. If it feels like a underplay the different opinions expressed here, I apologize, that was not my intent. I agree that this discussion is good and yes there is much to improve on how people are held accountable. But I noticed that sometimes in the past Grin discussion became nearly an emotional thing.
My message therefore was to try to avoid that. Stay happy, stay grinning, but do stay critical and express your opinions and views. Verify, do not trust.
(Basically I was trying to put a lighter note to the discussion, I guess I failed miserably :joy:)

1 Like