Hi @TerraRebels ,
I just wanted to register some thoughts here for consideration (more toward Terra v1 grant proposals in general, than the purposes of this specific proposal), since they are concerns that I do believe the broader Terra v1 governance should consider for project based grant community spend proposals in general.
I believe they enhance the project success of grants given from community pool spend proposals (while still recognizing that in technicality all that is required for a Terra v1 grant is a community pool spend proposal that passes governance). I also recognize that as the proposal author, it is your prerogative to weigh the merits of the proposal discussion comments in determining which comments have the merit of shaping your final proposal.
My main personal concerns are that I believe each project based grant should (as a broad outline - not every point applying to this particular proposal):
-
include a cost analysis or cost comparison (within the proposal discussion - or at least in the comments)
-
if the project is Layer 1 code based (and depending on the nature of the project, possibly Layer 2 as well), that it should include an independent code review, which includes security review as a component, that is factored into the overall price (even if by another developer within TR who has the required skill set).
-
if the project has a legal or financial impact for Layer 1, to include (arrange for) a legal review as part of the overall process near the beginning of the project (so that it can help the project know where to shift in design if needed, and helps the Terra v1 governance community know any legal implications)(does not seem to apply to these projects).
-
that instead of a block grant, that project grant proposals use a milestone approach.
- Although I do realize that this proposal does provide for some type of review process by breaking up the costs into trenches. Each of the trenches are in themselves sub-projects that can, in a sense, stand on their own - so something like this would apply to each sub-project where it is appropriate, unless it the sub-project is near a price point the community feels comfortable with without milestones - which given TR’s standing and history this very well may be the case). Something similar to what was proposed in 10936 (although admittedly for different assets that do not yet exist in the community pool):
- Projects where total funding sought would be equal to or greater than $30,000: It goes through 3 funding rounds based on minimum milestones (this means that the initial round seeking funding would be requested in order to complete milestone 1, which must be completed before seeking funding for milestone 2, etc.):
- 1 ) requirements and design
- 2 ) code complete and test ready (or appropriate project management milestone for any potential non-software development specific aspects toward Layer 1 software development or Infrastructure), and
- 3 ) product tested, reworked, and shipped/accepted/deployed (with appropriate external best practice and security review)
- Projects where total funding sought would be equal to or greater than $30,000: It goes through 3 funding rounds based on minimum milestones (this means that the initial round seeking funding would be requested in order to complete milestone 1, which must be completed before seeking funding for milestone 2, etc.):
- Although I do realize that this proposal does provide for some type of review process by breaking up the costs into trenches. Each of the trenches are in themselves sub-projects that can, in a sense, stand on their own - so something like this would apply to each sub-project where it is appropriate, unless it the sub-project is near a price point the community feels comfortable with without milestones - which given TR’s standing and history this very well may be the case). Something similar to what was proposed in 10936 (although admittedly for different assets that do not yet exist in the community pool):
I do realize that these are personal concerns, and again I recognize that no everyone will agree with them, and that as the proposal author I respect your right to shape your final proposal.
I really appreciate all that Terra Rebels has done, and is doing, in the revival process for Terra v1 - and the countless hours people associated with Terra Rebels have devoted in many different areas to help make that happen. Thank You.