No I don’t think so. I worked 30+ years in IT in the public service and always the person who was on-call would at least get paid an amount to carry the on-call phone due the disruption carrying it incurred to the on-call persons personal life.
E.g Whilst on-call they can’t be on holidays or out of town and they must carry it or be close to it at all times.
4 Likes
Agree with this sentiment 100%. I ran a professional services department for almost 15 years. The easiest and best running projects were well defined with deliverables and fixed price. Don’t get involved with rates and hours, it’s a mess and everyone views the value of an hour differently or how much can or can’t be done in an hour. We got a fixed priced quote, and the project was delivered.
This gets a yes vote from me, but I would suggest future proposals don’t even get into the number of hours or the rates. It’s a headache that isn’t worth it. Just quote the monthly value, and what will be given for that monthly value.
Edit: this reply was actually to P00595’s post.
3 Likes
Can’t find the exact comment where the breakup is discussed. Please point to the exact post/comment.
We have been following TR updates and are aware of the latest deliverables. Just wanted to know the breakup of spent funds
4 Likes
The comment was for TR not you 
The information asked is still missing in the original post and should be there for everyone to be able to see and refer to if need be.
1 Like
Tricky situation I see 
Fair enough. Maybe the on-call person gets some pay just for being on-call and then additional and higher amount if they need to actually do any work. But the day-to-day on call fee would be lower than employing them full time. Full time employment for just monitoring isn’t fiscally sound unless they can be providing other value to the chain when all systems are working properly.
Thank you Terra Rebels for fulfilling my requests, I am back to a YES on this prop. Regards.
4 Likes
@awhitehouse so IRL I actually work with a Managed Service Provider, and we do charge a monthly contract rate, for 24/7 on-call support we charge a extra monthly retainer fee, there are many ways to do it, the way this has been worked out fit best to help balance daily IRL jobs/life and maintaining / monitoring this 24/7
1 Like
@StakeBin the reason there was no breakdown presented as to how the funds were spent is due to it never being a requirement of the spend prop for those funds, it was more a flat-rate amount that we felt would cover the work required to get the infrastructure and apps built and delivered within a reasonable timeframe, we all have day jobs and family to attend to so that had to be factored into this as well, which means the amount had to be attractive enough for us to even consider taking this work on, plus additionally any unforeseen problems that could arise from unknown complications along the way, we basically built a infrastructure with little to no information as to spec requirement or what it would look like when needing to be scaled, then on top of that we had to re-work the code for the apps to work with the new infrastructure, was not just as simple as copy and paste, if you have more questions on this I am happy to continue this conversation with you.
2 Likes
@StakeBin the reason he doesn’t like to answer this question is that they literally made the community vote yes on a shady proposal, which as he already stated did not state how exactly the money would be spent, basically decepting the community which voted in good faith and based on TRs good reputation at that time.
What then happened was that the majority of funds was spent on compensation for discord moderators (of which one went MIA btw on a side note), while trying to justify to the community how important their “work” on rebelstation would be (testing etc.).
@echel0n does not like to provide a breakdown, because it would just make it very obvious that majority of recent proposal’s funds were spent on discord moderator salaries and trash, and these people have the cockiness to ask for even more in this proposal
On a side note, these people also received donations from the community and outside funding from the Neblio deal (it would be interesting to know where that money went, since they are asking for roughly $120k yearly on top of what they received already so far from the community which should roughly equate to $250k total).
Is @echel0n and @TerraRebels seriously trying to tell the community that this was not sufficient to run their infrastructure for a year hence the need to come here and ask for more not even four months after passing of the recent proposal (which btw deployed one month later than expected).
Given all this information, and the knowledge that @Jagmot-Allnodes is already providing a robust solution for endpoints (it’s missing a frontend wallet to be completely independent from TFL, but official terrastation wallet is already using their endpoints), how can @JESUSisLORD and @OrionMoney justify their yes votes on this proposal?
7 Likes
Yes, some of the funds where given to “moderators”, some of those left TR, some of those stayed, lesson learned on that one.
However, its impossible to deny that we built a infrastructure and re-coded the apps to work on it, plus we have delivered beyond and released mobile android app.
Yes, it took longer then the 2 months that we said we would roughly try and get it done in, but its done, again as promised and working.
We put a price forth we felt was fair and reasonable to get the work done, it went up for vote, it passed, we completed the work, not much more to it really.
What we are asking for now is not yearly, its quarterly, so not sure why you state $120k yearly, also the funds in our Open Collective have always been designated as operating costs for Terra Rebels, the Neblio money as well, which we no longer are receiving.
Again, the $150k was a flat-rate amount, everything we said we would do in that prop was done and more, there is no way that can be contested, the work is completed.
This prop certainly is more detailed, and rightfully so, we listened to what the community pointed out was wrong with our previous prop and took that to heart, and we continue to listen and engage with the community.
Yes, Allnodes is running additional endpoints for TFL’s station wallet, nothing wrong with that, if anything, we invite it to continue as having a solid alternative is just smart business.
3 Likes
Please go on and clarify for @StakeBin and @JESUSisLORD what percentage of those $150k was spent on moderators, how many of those that left the team gave back funds to TR and what happened with those funds. Also please provide inside on why you actually need another $130k yearly despite already having received roughly $250k in total. Where did that money go, don’t you think it would have been sufficient to cover your “cost” for a full year unless it was spent on waste?
One year has four quarters, correct. Do the math.
It does actually matter a lot, since you are asking for more funds already, even tho you cannot give (or shall I rather say refuse) to let us know what the funds have been spent on (including donations and neblio funds).
They are not providing “additional endpoints”, they are providing “the endpoints for TS” which btw handle the majority of the traffic on the network currently. So with all respect (and honestly I have zero for you) go use the funds you already got and come back asking for more next year.
Until you can give the community a breakdown of what you actually received so far (including outside sources) and what it was spent on, this should be a hard no from anyone with two brain cells left, especially given that we are not even dependent on the infrastructure provided by you.
8 Likes
Again, the 150k was a flat-rate, there is no breakdown required to give, it was not even a stipulation of the previous spend prop, those funds had zero bearing for getting the work done, those funds had everything to do with us wanting to get the work done, which we did complete the work.
The prop was very specific in what would be accomplished and that we would later request additional funding for maintenance and operational costs, so nothing to hide there.
This current prop is quarterly, in that its been requested for 3 months of wages, after that, a new spend prop would need be presented to the community to request another 3 months of wages, so this prop has a expiration after 3 months, do the math.
As for a breakdown as to where the funds went in the Open Collective, I request that you please go read the expenses, it does tell you what was spent and what it was spent for.
Furthermore, the previous prop did not say that any remaining left over funds would be used to fund the infrastructure, and I find it rather alarming that an agreement that was made, voted on, and then passed, would then after delivery be requested to be altered, thats now how agreements go, it also brings concern to us that this will become standard practice going forward, I truly hope that is not the case.
Thanks!
3 Likes
It just happens that one of the top 10 validators just asked you the same question and you’re again trying to weasel out of giving a public answer, because that would destroy your credibility (not that much of it is left anyways for TR in the community just looking at the delegation chart for your validator) with them.
Yup, equates to roughly $130k yearly, as stated already.
I find it rather alarming that a group which has already tricked the community into giving them $150k + tens of thousands of dollars in donations is asking for further funding while refusing to do any cost breakdown whatsoever on how previous funds were spent. I find this rather alarming and hope this is not going to be the case for other groups asking for funding in the future.
Thanks.
4 Likes
@StakeBin asked, and I gave my response as to WHY there was no cost breakdown, and I also welcomed him to come back and we can discuss things further on the topic, clearly we value communication with them as well as anyone else here.
$130k would equate to yearly if this currently prop was auto-revolving, it however is not, thus it pays for a single quarter and expires exactly after that.
No one was tricked into anything, TFL came out and publicly stated they would sunset their station and then later they changed their mind, in the end the community still ended up with what we promised they would get, and more.
Anyways, this has gone way off topic of what this agora post is for, so please, lets stay on topic in regards to this current prop, feel free to continue this conversation in the original post for the previous spend prop please.
Thanks!
1 Like
The community has not been deceived. She got what she paid for. Watch your words.
2 Likes
TR are contractors who delivered exactly upon their contract with the community. If the community wanted to stipulate how the 150k should exactly be spent then they shouldn’t have passed the vote as it was by 80% YES. The community needs to take responsibility for the vote and not complain after the fact. The vote provided a price for a job listed. They fulfilled this in full. It’s too late to blame them about how the funds were used. They made no promises in their contract with the community how the entire funds would be used. They said give us 150k we will do this. They delivered the job in 3.5 months so they deserve more work in my view.
If you contract a builder to build your home, sign the contract, he delivers the house exactly as you specified, then you complain because he bought a jetski? Unless the exact breakdown of costs was given in the contract you are not entitled to enforce your own desire of what a contractor team should spend their money on. That’s my view, they delivered despite being called scammers and under intense pressure, and thus have trust from me to do more work for the community. This proposal has a clear cost breakdown for what is being offered, 24/7 monitoring, maintenance and response for independent Rebel Station infrastructure. I supported the 150k spend back then, and I support the spend for reasonable running costs too.
Yes TFL’s position was they suddenly weren’t going to support LUNC and it looked like we’d be without a wallet. They later changed their mind. Allnodes and TCV run LCDs for Station wallet for us. Well things didn’t go well with TCV so far, and their call to continue funding that infrastructure is likely to come into issues. Otherwise LUNC is just relying on Allnodes to benevolently fund Station wallet infrastructure costs. As much as they want to do so that’s great. In my view we should not be relying on Station alone, or on Allnodes continued financial benevolence for our primary wallet. The community should fund Rebel Station IMO as it’s a good investment for LUNC. TFL has obvious legal issues and this could escalate for them as a company at any unknown time. We need another option so that if anything happens to Station wallet for LUNC we have another option which has all the features including governance.
The product Terra Rebels offer is LUNC focused with more improvements than Station such as the burn tab and community pool funding tab, which are nice features. TFL owns Station so any improvements have to be approved by them, which requires relying on a company in legal problems. I support independence from TFL in the event things go badly for them we LUNC holders are not left with problems. I think what TR are asking for 24/7 maintenance is reasonable and worth the money for a dedicated alternative to Station wallet. Those are part of the reasons I support this proposal.
4 Likes
You may want to pray on that a little further. Seems you have been deceived by the serpents tongue.
In many areas 150K is enough to build a house. Let us be mindful and attentive to the real needs of the chain. This will likely be the last quarter of this chain if the funds are not allocated correctly. Ask yourself do we really receive enough in funding into the CP a quarter to justify this expense ATM?
Show us a cost/benefit analysis to justify this spending?
6 Likes
TFL has legal problems. TcV will be in 100% legal trouble within the next month (Real problems not made up by slander) Terra Station is no longer seen as (fair) for investors. I am distrustful of TS and Terraport. It is not known what else will come to light. I’ve been here since the fall of the moon and I’ve seen a lot. Currently, the community pool is $260,628.35 and growing. TR has no legal problems. And their station is worth maintaining to remain independent of TFL TcV. There’s more money in the pot than we need for L1, repeg
1 Like
Noting the type of work required (basically monitoring and minor upgrades) - have you thought about moving the maintenance overseas IOT ensure capability/value of money/etc. to be provided when we as LUNC are essentially broke.
I’d argue that the work you are suggesting could possibly be undertaken by an overseas organization with us only spending a quarter of the funds - happy to be corrected.