I am writing this post to ask if the community is willing to fund the maintenance of the validator dashboard.
But first, a little background.
I’m part of the team which runs the AuraStake validator in both Terra Classic and Terra 2.0. Our team has been in the Terra ecosystem since 2021. We are a small team with big dreams. Due to a series of bad timings, several of our initiatives failed to take off.
We created AuraTrust (auratrust.io), a Chrome browser extension to protect users from frauds and scams. This was during the heyday of Anchor Protocol. (I personally know someone who had lost all his coins as a result.) When the Luna collapse happened, the scammers went away as well. Our extension became redundant.
We also created AuraSend (send.aurastake.com), a tool to send multiple coins (a defining feature of the original Terra) to multiple recipients in a single transaction. We had planned for the ecosystem to become more vibrant, and tools such as invoicing and payroll to become more important. AuraSend was meant to help with these functions. Unfortunately, this was not to be.
We created several articles to help with the community and validators as well. Most recently, we created an article to guide new Terra Classic validators on how to set up the price oracle and feeder. Personally, I was quite involved in Discord, helping fellow validators with their questions.
Onto the ask.
We also had created the validator dashboard (terra-classic.aurastake.com) at the time when staking was being re-enabled for Terra Classic. We had done that to provide the LUNC community a way to access certain blockchain data easily.
For a while now, we’ve been paying for the upkeep of the service out of our own pocket as the validator earnings were not enough.
Recently, we’ve had an issue with the service and we had to turn it off until we figured out what was wrong. My team has decided that it was not viable to keep the dashboard running as we are basically subsiding the running of the service for the past year or so.
I’m reaching out to the community to see if it is something that can be funded with the community pool. I am willing to put my time to maintain it but the hosting costs are real.
To pay for the costs, I’m asking for US$6000 worth of LUNC (equivalent to 67 mil LUNC at current prices) to keep service running for the next 6 to 9 months.
I’ll be grateful for any feedback. Even if you think it’s not a service worth keeping, it’ll be good to know as well.
Attached are two screenshots of what the service looked like before.
I have used your website before and still have it open as one of my tabs on my phone to check periodically. I found it useful and a good alternative with other functionality than Stakebin. I would agree and vote YES to this funding request, but I don’t know yet if I’d agree to a second round (providing funding on an ongoing basis, as opposed to a one-off), I’d have to consider that further later. Thank you.
I haven’t been able to understand yet which side Tonu is on since he goes and de(rails every prop he can lay his eyes on. Currently, he’s just lying to you. There is NO TGF. If there is, ask him to contact them and tell them about your prop. Being a community member, that’s the least that he can do for the community. Oh, you can contact Redline also. He and Tonu are the only two human beings on this planet I have heard talking about TGF. Not even Ed talks about TGF anymore
Alright. Then why don’t you guys show us information related to TGF that shows that they are active and they are doing the work they were supposed to do according to the contract with the community and the proposal they passed?
Why? Last time I checked, TGF doesn’t own LUNC (well yeah they do, since validators let them do whatever the f*ck they want to the chain, but meh). Since when did we get to a point where everything has to go through the goddamn TGF? It’s a non-profit grants foundation, it’s supposed to deal with grants, not Agora governance and chain decision-making! I know this is all bullshit because in practice LUNC = Allnodes + TGF now, but can we at least try to keep up appearances?
**The grants program does not actually fund anything, just collects proposals, organizes independent reviews, makes recommendations via these reviews, and keeps projects accountable. All community spend proposals still need to go through governance and voting by the community.
It also stated:
*This grants program does not prevent the submission of any community pool distribution on its own. This will be the recommended method to request a grant due to the oversight, peer review, and rationale described above.
The Terra White Paper does acknowledge using fiscal policy in spending proposals that may encourage anything that is “solving real problems for users,
increasing Terra’s adoption and as a result increasing the GDP of the Terra economy,” highlights dApps and smart contracts particularly.
I look forward to hearing from other delegators in this discussion to see if they found it a useful tool as well for tracking validator statistics, and other validators that may have used it to determine their statistics in areas that other dashboards may not take into account (such as oracle voting misses).
Since it’s inception the idea has been for projects to apply for grants through TGF as an option.
With the help of one old Rabbi, Community has learned of the woes how our small coffers can only be divided so much…
So, TGF, in theory, is the middleman between projects seeking funds. TGF looks it over. Potentially seeks expert-advice and if all is sound - will have their “TGF approved” mark or comment.
In practice - No project has been put forward.
Last billing was in December of 2022.
Probably the Custodian plan of Arubasu.
In practice, reality is what you perceive it to be.
Hahahha yeah I was there talking in that Spaces. I think you are Irish/Scottish? Not sure. Sounded like it. You have been sp(amming everyone bro. That’s why people bl(ocked you. We can’t do that here so well, go on.