I updated the proposal with a longer timeline. Thanks for your suggestion.
I spoke with @boz_m and he expressed excitement about your idea. I encourage you to apply!
Amazing idea! Let´s do it!
Agree with community, very good proposal!
This is an amazing idea, and use of the community pool. It will help onboard new developers and importantly, keep them in the ecosystem. Totally on board!
A fund for developers makes a ton of sense and something I’m 100% behind. Voting money out of the community pool for this also a YES from me. Voting that money to a single foundation address is something I’m not particularly interested in. The foundation has plenty of AKT they could use for this without requesting money from the community pool.
I think a multisig committee to manage this (with representatives from a number of companies in the ecosystem) would be a much better way to do this.
Thank You very much
Excellent proposal! Excited to start using Akash and thrilled to see what everyone builds!
@jackzampolin invite me to a 10-minute YouTube session to discuss my objections to the use of multi-sig by almost anybody, and the reason for that.
I mean just to make a long story short, thank God I wasn’t involved, it wasn’t my money, it happened adjacent to me. That does not stop them from calling me every single month neurotic as hell trying to figure out how to get their money back because they screwed it up.
I am totally okay with sending blocks of funds to individuals or individual companies who are then accountable to them and I think that is preferable to complex signature schemes of any type.
They lost their money 4 years ago now.
They call every single month.
There’s nothing I can do, and they worked their butts off for that money.
They figured out that they had messed it up two hours after the transaction was done.
I give smaller bets to smaller teams who are directly accountable for outcomes, then we won’t need to msig
I find that going into a multi-signature transaction, nearly 100% of people feel that they’re very very smart, and that after a multi-signature transaction, it is a significantly lower percentage of people who have faith in their own intelligence and ability to work computers / encryption.
This is a knee jerk response.
I’m glad we’re all excited about releasing funds to the development community.
We’ve spent time and resources developing a transparent framework for funding projects. Having a “fund by committee” source wallet will just add unnecessary friction.
This proposal is for the first phase it is 100,000 AKT of the 946,462 AKT in the pool. We welcome additional proposals run by the community or validators or anyone else, but for the first phase of this program we are aiming to be pragmatic.
This address is a foundation multi-sig with core team members as signatories.
A public multi-sig is the most transparent but the least pragmatic approach as there is no easy way to coordinate for Cosmos SDK-based chains.
We aim to distribute these funds to hundreds of projects, and coordinating amongst five different parties using the CLI to approve will lead to extreme delays that’ll significantly compromise the initiative’s goal, which is to gain adoption.
Rest assured, the foundation will publish a spreadsheet and promise to keep it up to date in real-time, so there is public accountability and will let us move fast.
So I’ve been managing a multisig for prop34 and we have sent out a ton of payments. Sending out groups of payments at a time is very easy so I don’t see any issue with the volume of transactions. The level of effort for the signers would be minimal.
Why doesn’t the foundation use some of its funds for this purpose? Why got to the community pool?
We are of course using a lot of company time and money for this - probably more than what is in this proposal.
That said, I understand the hesitation. The intent was to engage with the community. If you or others don’t like the proposal then vote against it. No harm, no foul.
We support the cause 100%. It sounds like a great way to attract developers and grow the surrounding infrastructure!
It would be good however to have some clarity around whether/why this falls outside of the remit of the existing marketing/dev funds. Although it doesn’t sound like the initiative has been raised by the community, I don’t see why the community can’t choose to spend the community pool funds on this so long as we have sufficient information to be able to make an informed decision.
FYI all, an update came through from Chandra Station on Twitter and Medium:
For those following along here…
Hi @KamuelBob, thank you for the question and suggestion. If you have ideas, please share them!
Was the initiative raised by the community?
I wrote this proposal to give the community pool funds back to the community, as the pool approaches 1M tokens. Specifically I believe we should give it to developers who have been working very hard to build tools and products that help grow the network.
I asked the entire community to review this proposal, collected feedback, and incorporated their ideas. I proposed a Community Awards Board (CAB) made up of community members and Akash core team members to manage the fund with total transparency.
Also, I asked the company for review and incorporated feedback from the team. One person requested that it be a multi-sig account with added security and transparency rather than an account managed by one person or entity. One person suggested that the proposal should start small, and so the proposal 9 would spend just over 10% of the pool. Another person suggested rather than this be “my” proposal we should simply share it to the community and see if everyone embraces the idea and let the community own it and submit it.
After a week of public comment and feedback, one of the most well known and respected community leaders asked to submit the proposal.
Since submitting the proposal, the idea to use a more decentralized multi-sig account owned and operated by more people was suggested by multiple people on Twitter and here in the forum and is now being incorporated into a new proposal.
If you are on the board, should you be allowed to vote to award to yourself?
It seems ethical to me that someone who applies for an award should not be signing a transaction awarding themself or their business partner funds, and they should either resign from the board or abstain from the vote.
How many developers do we expect to participate?
Let’s think about how we can scale a developer program, and how much it will cost. Can we interview every developer before we give them even $100 to get started? (A: No) If you look at the numbers in the proposal, it scales 10x at each of the four tiers from $100 to $1000 to $10,000 to $100,000. The first phase of the developer program is to deploy $100 to a very large number of developers, a number I estimate around 1,000 developers based on the traffic we see on the Community and Discord Chat. Only in later phases are we going to fund larger amounts. This ensures that the developers that receive large awards of $10k or $100k have been around for some time and already received smaller awards for $100 or $1,000, building trust one step at a time. This also means that this proposal is the first of a few proposals to continue funding this program. We started with just 10% of the funds, to see it get started and work the kinks out. Then we can come back and ask for more money once the first amount is spent appropriately and professionally. Prop 9 would fund Phase 1 and part of Phase 2.
- Phase 1: $100,000: $100 for up to 1,000 deployments
- Phase 2: $200,000: $100 for 1,000 deployments AND $1,000 for up to 100 proposals
- Phase 3: $300,000: Same as Phase 2 AND $10,000 for up to 10 projects in progress
- Phase 4: $400,000: Same as Phase 3 AND $100,000 for 1 applications
- Phase (n): $100,000 x (n): Same as Phase 3 AND $100,000 for up to (n-3) applications
Why can’t the treasury pay for this program?
The treasury is used to fund developers today, paying out awards for 5 different coding challenges. This is part of my job at Akash, and so I’ve made about 80 transactions to developers. In May, I interviewed a new developer almost every day and sent them AKT. Why? Paul Graham said do things that don’t scale. Seven (7) developers were the winners of the Solana hackathon. Thirty (30) developers applied for the Sovryn Gitcoin challenges. We have 13 submissions for the Sovrynthon Gitcoin challenges, and the winners will be announced on August 2nd. In June and July, thirty-seven (37) developers received amount of 30 AKT through the current funding process.
Note that if anyone wants to be involved in the board, it’s as easy as posting a nomination for everyone to see. In the proposal I asked for nominations via email, and I propose we stick to full transparency and nominate people on the forum. I have been following robert’s rules of order. Yes, you can nominate yourself, that’s called volunteering. I asked who should be on the board and two names came up in private discussions: @baktun14 well-known for Akashlytics.com and the Desktop Deploy and @Chalabi well-known for ChandraStation.com and Moon View.
I’d like to thank the following people for contributing ideas and feedback on this proposal.
@neo @martin @amrosa @gosuri @abozanich @boz_m @tombeynon @baktun14 @neil @Michael_Akash @JasdeepSingh @jack and @Chalabi
edit: For better discourse, I’ve edited this post to redact the names of the people who suggested the ideas they contributed and just refer to them as “one person”.
Thanks Colin for the detailed summary. I think the transparency and availability of this type of information for delegators is vital when it’s their (our) funds that are being spent, so it’s so good to see your communication levels the whole way along.
I’m inferring from your second last paragraph that the foundation funds do not have an allocation to apply to this new idea without taking them from another planned purpose and that hence this idea would not be possible or would not happen without the funds from the community pool. Because as you say this type of thing could be and has been paid for by the foundation in the past and near future so the precedent has been set.
I’m really pleased to see this initiative because developers have shown (in other Cosmos chains) to be hesitant to approach the community pool directly with their ideas and ask for funding so this reduces one of the barriers to involvement.
Bliss Dynamics supports the current proposal in its current form, and if you decide to create a new proposal with a different multisig then we will support that too, although we don’t require that change for our support.
2 posts were merged into an existing topic: Nominating @Chalabi and @backtun14
@amrosa I’d like to invite you to provide a full proposal of your research at the first CAB meeting. If you accept, we will coordinate schedules.
@JasdeepSingh I would like to publicly invite you to submit a proposal for review by the Community Awards Board!