I much prefer this proposal to the previous one.
4 Likes
If the developers not paid by the community development stop than there is no value of L1 Chain itâs dies slowly so donât be greedy for the fund letâs assume if the 4M fund to use for the burn after than who willl be paid for the development.
7 Likes
Agree with this proposal.
How can the 9 signers distribute any funds for devs without a budget or proposal? All Alexâs proposal does immediately is pay advisor salaries with no work requirements or oversight.
We need core devs that want to get paid, and that the community WANTS to pay, to put a proposal up for vote with details of how much is needed, what work will be accomplished, and how to pay. The vote will pass easily.
The thrust of entrusting $4+ million to the self-appointed board members is nothing is getting done and things move too slowly. How is that a reasonable argument when not a single budget or proposal has been made to fund the devs for their work using established functioning chain governance.
Where are the core devs threatening to leave the chain? Can you please give us a budget and proposal to vote on??? Thank
3 Likes
My problem with this proposal is that itâs main purpose is to counter the proposal with the 9 proof of work team. Itâs does not have a clear purpose.
The Devs need to get paid, the infrastructure needs finance, yes the idea that the community needs to decide is a good one in theory but in practice it will not work.
As you, yourself have experienced this is a new community still building cohesion and is prone to suspicion, expecting them to make decisions over a billion dollar Blockchain is not practical, some have very little understanding.
Your proposal will only lead to more disagreement, the best course of action is to move forward with current proposal them ask for changes if we do not see the effects of their work at a later date, at least then you will have a strong case.
15 Likes
Does it work to take control of the wallet but only withdraw a predetermined amount each month to fund the community pool instead of converting to LUNC all at once?
Sorry but I believe that you are missing the point of the proposal. The all idea is to propose that the new signers send the funds to the community pool . And when argument like converting to lunc is dangerous because lunc is volatile , that makes me believe that some ppl donât trust the rival of the chain.
11 Likes
If you donât believe in Lunc you better get out and donât give comments
2 Likes
we are going to spend 45 thousand dollars per month of salary for 9 people to just manage a fund where 1/3 has already been committed with remuneration to keep a key.
If you want to receive a salary to develop, Iâm in favor of programming, now spending money to keep a key Iâm against.
4 Likes
The current signers (DK is not a signer, thus these are not his assets; Iâm not sure why you are dragging him into a decision where he has zero jurisdiction) can do 2 things with these assets (besides send them somewhere): They can add signers, and remove signers.
So they would add 9 signers and then the existing 6 signers would be removed. Everything after that is none of the current signersâ business.
So the question is 1) Who will the new signers be; 2) What do the signers commit to doing with the funds after being voted in.
The deal on the table was explicitly a dev fund, a funding vehicle to (primarily) pay devs and other basic L1 work. It was not to send the funds to the community pool. A community pool with a healthy amount of $$ already exists, and it can easily be funded, or spent by existing governance processes. The fact that existing governance processes have done almost nothing with that money in 6 months is a key part of the problem attempting to be solved here via the Multisig.
That doesnât mean âmy dealâ is the only deal on the table. I believe the existing keyholders would honor many other types of deals. But the existing signers couldâve sent the funds themselves to the community pool a long time ago without ever talking to me. Their preference is for something else. That has been made quite clear over ~3 weeks of prior discussions.
The proposal discussed is a framework to pay devs which is more efficient than the protocol voting on every single expense â which has gotten nobody paid anything in 6 months, and aside from a tiny grant to Edâs ancillary program, has not made any financial decisions. Any signer could get kicked off by community vote, and replacements will be nominated and voted in by the community. This is a delegation of community assets to execute functions which the current process has, thus far, miserably failed to carry out.
The current âgovernance processâ is akin to MSFT shareholders voting on every individual line of code in the next version of Windows, and begging influencers (such as yourself) for the next 6 months to create a political consensus to pay for their work. It is not working, and thatâs self-evident to anyone who has ever run a business. The influencers always have better things to do, and bigger empires to build. The inability of the current framework to compensate anyone is self-evident. âJust send it to the community poolâ is a cop-out that doesnât do anything to address the problem that the $4m was made available to address.
11 Likes
I did not make any argument about converting to LUNC, my point is purely decision making on the part of the community and before you ask me do I trust the community that would be a yes, but do I trust their competence to make major decisions on a billion dollar Blockchain that would be a no.
Part of your proposal about sending some to a Dev pool, do you think the guys harassing you over Neblio would accept that, leading to more disagreement.
The fact remains this proposal is purely a counter to the other proposal and seems rushed.
4 Likes
Several comments:
1/ not very good written (I do not mean the English). the proposal shall not contain many âcan beâ. it is not clear what is your proposal except that you insist to have the money in the community pool.
2/ at the end it is not clear if and how many new wallets/pools will be created beside the community pool to manage those funds?
3/ if you set up portions for different business and development lines, then it is a must to separate them in different wallets/pools, otherwise it is going to be mass as the community pool is filled in with the fees from the tx.
4/ fully disagree with the allocation of the 25% for the on-chain developers and 25% for marketing (this is insane this is the most dangerous zone for corruptions and stealing money - the marketing, although I agree is important but the most important at the moment).
5/ to freeze 25% for emergency is not good, the chain needs exponential development in any directions. with freezing the 25% for emergency you decrease the money velocity in a situation when the chain need investments. If the developments increase the economic activities on chain, the community pool will be filled in and can guard emergency situations.
6/ IMO, we have 3 main directions for effectively allocating the funds:
a) payment for the work already done for revival of the chain
b) future on chain development (technical and businesswise) work payment
c) fund dApps creation on chain
7/ the issue how technically the swap/purchase of LUNC will be done is not address at all e.g.: is it going to be one off swap/purchase or many transactions, where this purchase will be executed, how it is going to affect the price, what will be the period for executing this.
2 Likes
It is clear that we need to assign 6-9 multisig signers to receive this wallet and then we need to decide what to do with this money. By putting into the community pool, we are delaying the decision of what to do until a later time, weeks to potentially months down the line. I believe the time to decide is now. No matter what, our next moves requires a community governance vote to pass. So letâs figure out all the details now and execute.
30 Likes
What?Where did i said that?So sick of these new moonboyz.
The compromise of sending the funds to the community pool ,in my view is the honest thing to do here. Regarding the signers ,yes is true we need to decide ,but im proposing ,for the new signers to agree to send the funds to the community pool in advance.
6 Likes
looks good!
3 Likes
The only word you really know is moonboyđ
Donât talk about something you donât know boy
Iâm 100â agree
1 Like
correction: 4/ fully disagree with the allocation equally of the 25% for the on-chain developers and 25% for marketing (the marketing is the most dangerous zone for corruptions and stealing money, although I agree marketing is important but not the most important at the moment).
1 Like
Ok.Go back to YT influencers.They will hype you enoughâ:yawning_face:
.As for your reply.Is the same as the other one.Useless.
I respect your inputs,but I believe that you are focus on the exemplar that was just a exemplar.the main idea.is to reinforce the idea that the funds should go to the community pool.the rest is to show that is a agile way to explore the distribution of the funds from the community pool ,with smart contracts
6 Likes