Joint L1 Task Force

GO GO

:eye: :eye:

2 Likes

I strongly disagree… but you are entitled to your opinion…

1 Like

DJ Trev balances the representation which is primarily composed of developers.

If there is no one who represents the general investor or influencer then it’s gonna be a Microsoft.

Not only should DJ Trev be in it, I believe someone like Classy/asobs should be in this Oversight Committee so that Classy/asobs balances DJ Trev.

3 Likes

Yes great job Ed! I approve and I hope this is voted on ASAP!

2 Likes

Liked full support.

2 Likes

the only Q is will you all simply quit if there will be not enaught community money for future quaterly installments? as this can represent big risk for non or half completation of chain upgrades…

3 Likes

This is contractual work. It’s very reasonable. Implementing L1 systems are costly… Just imagine going to a specialist doctor for a life saving procedure.

2 Likes

Clasy is a joke …way to emotional… but again you are entitled to your opinion… and im not against having someone in the so called press sector… just need someone who can actually break it down for others…which Dj Trev…cannot…

2 Likes

At this point we need direction and leadership. If this proposal gives us that; along with accountability; then let’s go for it. Atleast we will have something in place that we can tweak if necessary because we won’t know if this arrangement will work unless we implement it. I have faith and trust in this prop!

2 Likes

Thank you for the good suggestion. I have some questions.

  • Can you be more intuitive and easier to explain for general investors and non-developers? We don’t need to understand the jargon of developers. We don’t need understand about code when use google search, smartphone, SNS as well. You will be able to explain the goals of the Q1 plan to anyone understandably.

  • Most of the maintenance plans are now. Do you have any other plans besides maintenance?

  • Several excellent proposals have been mentioned in Terra Agora. Among them, X-fileperseek’s proposal is the most positive repeg plan in the past six months. Don’t you review the suggestions of other members other than your plan?

Even if it is not adopted, it needs to be reviewed if you are community’s leader core team. Most community members want change and challenges, not maintenance. We can’t just think of maintaining chains as an investment.

  • Core development teams in other chains do not charge for L1 development fee in the community. They create their own profit structure. However, our developers pay $150,000 per quarter for LUNC development. What are the benefits that the community will benefit from? What’s the difference between now and 3 months later?
7 Likes

Name your choice.

2 Likes

Yes full support, let’s vote as soon as possible

2 Likes

With great respect to TGF and to the entire team which has come forward to develop and support the chain, we will still need to be absolutely neutral when looking at this proposal, as we have done earlier for TR’s and Faffy’s proposal. With TR, we have not only been neutral, we have been overtly critical sometimes. Thus, it is our responsibility to look at this proposal as reasonably as possible, while being objective and critical at the same time.

The following points should cover most of my criticism with the proposition:

  1. Contractual Obligation - The community is at the precipice of making another important decision for community pool spending without a “legal” contractual obligation outlined on a legally binding agreement between both parties (the development team and the community). I believe TGF was made for this very purpose: to handle the legal obligations for teams being vetted for future spend proposals.

Thus, it should be a requirement of the entire team to:

  • Be KYC verified (doxxed) with either TGF or any other third party KYC Verification platform
  • Sign a contract with either TGF (on a legally binding agreement paper ratified by one or more jurisdictions in the world), or one of the members of the community who reside in the same jurisdiction as one of the members of the development team
  1. Project Budget & Allocation - I did check the average salary of a blockchain developer in the US, and it is high, between ~$112,000-147,000 USD per year. We have just approved a spending proposal (Prop 11030) which has a significant budget at $150,000 USD. I understand that there are various proposals lined up which should replenish the CP over the next one year, but to ensure that we can fund as many projects as possible over the course of the next one year, we would like to request you to minimize costs (maybe cut medical, home and other allowances from the salary) and reduce the salary for the 2 full-time and/or 2 part-time developers to the lower side of the average salary of blockchain developers in the US, i.e. ~$112,000 USD per year.

As a clause, you may add to the proposal that the salary of every team member being remunerated from the CP will be increased between 8-10% depending upon the final decision of the Oversight Committee at the end of one year. This would be like a promotion (salary hike) based on performance.

  1. Replacement Team Members - At the event of any unavoidable circumstance, if any team members were to leave, we would request you to let us know the specifics of who, how and when those members shall be replaced by either the development team or TGF if such an event were to occur in the future.

The proposal does not have any clause to restrain any team member from leaving the project in the next one year or even in the next one month. We would request you to discuss & decide among yourselves, and add such a clause which indicates clearly the term of employment of each member of the team. It is unclear whether this is a long-term employment proposition or a project proposal for only the next 3 months, because if the proposal is for future work as well, then the proposal should outlined that clearly and provide a brief of the work which will be done by the team in the future. Currently, we need a team to commit to 1-2 years of development on the chain.

  1. Fuzzy Decentralized Structure - The proposal does not clearly mention who is leading the development team and/or the entire team at large. It does not mention whether TGF is completely responsible for all tasks to be completed by the team which is doing the development. Finally, it has the same issue as with TR since this is a completely decentralized structure with an oversight committee (in the case of TR, even though TGF is in touch with them, we have still not been able to resolve the issues raised by the community regarding non-transparency of development and funds).

The issue with a decentralized structure of a development is that, it is unclear who is leading the development team. There is at least a SCRUM Master in an Agile-type development spree of 3 months (divided into periods of one month each). If the leader of the development team were to leave the project, then this not only causes delay in achieving current development goals but affects future development plans as well.

As an example, one of the members mentioned in this team has left one DAO (which has has just been funded) and is now working with a different team (with a different funding proposal). There is no guarantee (reason mentioned in Point 1) that such an incident will not occur with this development team as well. Only after Zaradar had left TR, we got to know who was leading development and what was the structure like factually. The community did not ask the right questions at the right time, which is why we are currently facing multiple issues after approving Proposal No. 11030.

  1. TGF Funding - You have mentioned that “*Additional budgets may be requested for infrastructure and L2 wallet providers/partners to assist during these stages.” While I agree with this proposition, we would like to request you to consider funding additional infrastructure costs from TGF funds because this is a project which is directly controlled financially by TGF (you have mentioned that the funds will be deposited in a multi-sig wallet signed by members of TGF). Also, this deals with core L1 development, something that the TGF is made for I believe.

If the additional costs cannot be compensated by TGF, then please consider approaching AWS for Nonprofits | AWS because TGF is a non-profit organization and even if it is not, Terra Luna Classic is an open source project and the costs for the infrastructural requirement can be satisfied by AWS Non-profits. There are similar offerings by most large competitors (such as GCP, etc.). This minimizes costs by ~$800 USD per month or ~$9,600 USD per year, so we should definitely try.

10 Likes

Thank you Ed for this proposal, overall I agree with everything stated. One small question.

Would you please be able to share details on how you chose the "community oversight committee’? I do think this committee should be chosen by the community…

3 Likes

The L1 team will work on the USTC re-peg or the USTN stablecoin ? Thx

4 Likes

This is an interesting proposal.But I also strongly recommended that you move the public pool to staking as a first step.
https://classic-agora.terra.money/t/community-pool/48004?u=pivo4et

2 Likes

The men is takeing care of 997.082 mil $ blockchain investors money . So let me ask you someting if you invest in a reataurant and for sure you have no clue about it as a bussines , you have a team that porduce you $ and make things happening you pay them good $ ?
Or you take all the bread and you give them bread crumbs.
We can say Thank You for this proposal there are teams of block chain developers which are working by task and by hours and are not giving you deadline.:wink:

2 Likes

Hi, I like the way is presented and transparency.
I will support that

3 Likes

This looks like a step in the right direction.
We .ay struggle on funding, but I hope we will make it.

1 Like

Dis be soundin’ nice an’ solid me matey. It be gettin’ me yay votage. :skull_and_crossbones::fist::beers::sunglasses:

1 Like