BizDev Committee Funding Proposal

BizDev Committee Funding Proposal

This proposal is for the on-chain funding period 01 October 2021 to 31 December 2021.

Purpose of the BizDev Committee

The Committee exists to primarily support the enrichment of the application layer of Secret Network and become a community-led Growth incubator.

This will include several initiatives including:

  • Fostering relationships with existing developers on Secret Network to understand ongoing developments;
  • Supporting and funding the upskilling of new community developers and empower them by helping them find roles within the ecosystem;
  • Collaborating with Secret Agents to build a database of dApps across various ecosystems that have already explored multichain deployment;
  • Support the Governance Committee’s CCBL and fund or incubate teams that can build the desired products;
  • Periodically report on advances in the cryptocurrency ecosystem to better understand the opportunities available to Secret Network;
  • Increase Secret Network’s exposure by attending several pertinent East Coast cryptocurrency conferences (funded and attended by Jay | đť•ŠhadowRealm) in a grassroots effort to onboard VC’s and developers. This will harmonise with efforts from the Secret Foundation, the Awareness Committee and Secret Agents; and
  • Aim to grow Secret Network through boots on the ground efforts while evangelizing developer growth, sourcing developers and ultimately creating an incubator for applications/architecture networking with talent from other chains.

Targets for the proposed funding period

  • Onboard new community developers to support their development and team building;
  • Attend cryptocurrency events to secure VC’s, developers and interchain relationships;
  • Develop relationships from outside of the Secret Network community to help facilitate deployment of applications/architecture on Secret Network;
  • Update the EVM-Compatibility report previously prepared by Riaz | Orageux101; and
  • Create reports on the state of insurance protocols, decentralised launchpads and cloud computing on the blockchain.

Aims for future periods

While the proposed committee leads cannot guarantee success in obtaining funding in the future, it hopes to:

  • Empower a community developer to assist in team-building and development of dApps;
  • Continue building developer relationships by way of hackathons. This would help find potential talent for the Network who will be able to learn and be supported by more experienced developers from within the Network;
  • Create a DAO that would allow a revenue-sharing model in dApps developed by the community.

Budget Request

The BizDev Committee asks to be compensated for lead roles and a discretionary budget.

The purpose of the discretionary budget is to support community developers to empower them to create decentralised applications. These will include dApps that the community have put forward, via the Community Curated Bounty List, and dApps that have seen significant traction across the cryptocurrency space.

Jay | đť•ŠhadowRealm = 3,000 SCRT / month | 15-20 hours per week

  • Twenty years of professional experience as a private business owner, VC and entrepreneur;
  • Successfully founded and scaled an art wholesale company to $7m annual revenue;
  • Sat on the board of Mulvihill Electric LLC where he secured Goldman Sachs as an equity partner;
  • VC and current consultant to a “best-in-state” marijuana company with over $300m annual revenue and growth of 250% per annum; and
  • Long-term active validator on Secret Network.

Riaz | Orageux101 = 3,000 SCRT / month | 15-20 hours per week

  • Four years of professional experience in restructuring services with three years at a global big-four firm;
  • Joined the Secret Agent program in January 2021 and has worked with various teams in the community including Enigma, Secret Foundation and Committees across various initiatives;
  • An avid researcher of cryptocurrency projects with a focus on smart contract platforms and associated applications/architecture; and
  • The most loved person on the Secret Network Telegram.

Discretionary Budget

The discretionary budget will primarily exist to support the upskilling of community developers and funding the development of dApps. A breakdown of the discretionary budget will be provided at the end of the funding period. Any unutilised amounts in the discretionary budget will be rolled over to the subsequent period.

Total Ask

Jay | đť•ŠhadowRealm = 3,000 SCRT / month

Riaz | Orageux101 = 3,000 SCRT / month

Discretionary Budget = 10,000 SCRT

Total Proposal Spend for 3 Months: 28,000 SCRT

4 Likes

Should anyone have any queries, please do not hesitate to ask! Otherwise, we’re looking to put the proposal up in the next couple of days if there are no concerns.

1 Like

I was writing some feedback, was halfway through the proposal.

Already on chain… that’s a record :rofl:

Hi Stefan, I apologise for the speed at which the Proposal was launched. While it hasn’t been up for as long as other proposals on the Network - it was up for more than two days. We held the view that a significant majority of the community is accessible and available on weekends and therefore any concerns or feedback wouldn’t have needed to wait until Monday.

After putting up the forum post, we reached out to many community members to gauge sentiment before launching the Proposal.

It seemed illogical to continue delaying the Proposal in anticipation of any feedback on the forums which had not yet come whilst we were making progress on a number of fronts.

I hope we can be better on this front in the future.

Hi Stefan, I’ve always been a fan of records sir :joy:
On a serious note, we did push this on chain rather quickly and for that I want to publicly apologize to you and others. I was personally delayed due to node instability issues and some infrastructure I needed to adjust after the recent hardfork. Riaz and I thought it best to catch up to Q4.

I will reach out to you personally as I would appreciate your honest feedback and feel free to always reach out to myself or Riaz regarding any concerns or ideas in turn.

If we vote yes on this proposal it will likely be the last committee we fund asking for funds ignoring the current value of scrt. This proposal is currently asking for 100k USD and over $10,000 a month for 15-20 hours of non technical work.

We do not recognize using the “average value” of secret as a valid approach. But I do support bizdev.

6 Likes

Thanks for the feedback Ian. I fully agree with this concern…These wild market swings sure do distort the figures.

I can see a 6-12 month average being more appropriate in the future.

1 Like

What will the price be when the proposal is made and passes is all that matters (to me).

1 Like

Price would have been a piece of feedback from me as well.

This proposal sits at 3-4 times higher than every other committee proposal that came before it. And price swing is part of the equation. However, as far as I know. Most if not all committee proposals, and proposals in general, have come with a MA that was used, and some $ value to which the SCRT amount asked was based. This proposal is lacking that justification.

On top of that, you ask for a discretionary budget that includes the development of dApps.
We have an ecosystem pool, a community pool, a SNAC process that could be used for this, and now we are getting a committee’s discretionary budget to fund this?

Explain to me why money out of the community pool needs to take this committee detour to end up at developers? It makes things more complex, what added value is this going to have?

Anyway, discussion for naught now. It is on-chain now, but my general idea is that this proposal is rushed, not to standard, and asks money for things that it shouldn’t be asking money for (IMHO).

3 Likes

Thinking more about this. You are creating an, in my opinion, unacceptable loss of SCRT or administrative boundary here.

If you get income from the chain, that is a taxable event
If you send money to a developer, you can deduct that as an expense, but only when you have an invoice / KYC the developer.

So now a developer is going to have to KYC with a committee in order to get funded? The only way around this is if you pay the tax on de discretionary budget and use what is left to pay the developer (which in some jurisdiction may still require KYC). Meaning a loss of SCRT for the community as the developer could have just gone straight to the chain.

1 Like

As others have mentioned, the USD amount is not in line with the task at hand.

We will abstain this time, and only because unused funds roll over, but we will be voting no from here on for every proposal otherwise worthy but requesting funds in SCRT amounts.

Most proposals should ask for USD amounts, as they have 100% USD expenses. At the time of disbursement, they receive enough SCRT to cover the amount requested in USD. Whether these teams want to hold, sell to USD or a stablecoin it is up to them. The price for the calculation can be the coingecko avg closing price for the day previous to the disbursement date. Simple, pen and paper, no need for stablecoins or oracles. Sure feel free to improve the process as you see fit, but any improvements will bring minimal advantages over this plain and simple method.

Pls discuss this idea here: Most Governance Proposals Should Request USD denominated Funds

6 Likes

I will address your last comment first, I disagree this discussion is not for naught. I really appreciate this feedback and I want to openly discuss any all concerns Stefan. I think you make several valid points and in turn i’d like to address them. Regardless of the passing or failing of this “committee”, this discussion would need to be had and by the way I dislike calling this a committee because it is not, it is a community funded and led growth incubator and I would like to operate it as such. We are in a similar lane as the SF but with extreme focus on the dapp layer and front end/back end dev relationships.

On top of that, you ask for a discretionary budget that includes the development of dApps.
We have an ecosystem pool, a community pool, a SNAC process that could be used for this, and now we are getting a committee’s discretionary budget to fund this?

Explain to me why money out of the community pool needs to take this committee detour to end up at developers? It makes things more complex, what added value is this going to have? text

Let me extrapolate a bit. BizDev is needed for so many reasons that a voice chat would be more appropriate, so let me try to summarize my intentions in a clear and concise way here in the forums the best I can.

This discretionary budget is an initial seeding of the incubator fund to operate fully without strings attached (additional steps like going on chain or through the snac process which has been underutilized IMO) and move quickly if needed. Please note as with all discretionary funds it will be held in a public wallet and be completely and utterly transparent.

The dapps layer is the focus but this budget can and will be for other bottlenecks and general problem solving as we see fit. E.g. Offer a community bounty for more front end devs…Pay a lesser skilled dev a small 2 week stipend to learn and deep dive into smart contracts and help them build a team…Fund a hackathon in conjunction with the yet to be discovered Developer lead, giving us access to and building our communities dev pool/resources…Fund and host an event during these larger crypto related happenings with another community to foster crosschain and community partnerships…Promote a worthy community led initiative (e.g. Anons) by offering up small bounties for tasks…Working directly with awareness and the agents by offering bounties and incentivize them to assist in the search for more builders and doers!

My current view is that the ecosystem fund, SNAC program along with SN fellows and grants programs have ALL been woefully underutilized. Part of our mission is to evangelize these pools of funding, find talent, builders, developers, persons of interest and get them to USE these pools and deploy our funds in a way that will quickly scale out our dapp layer and tooling Stefan. The word tooling is a term I’m using here that is to be taken generally. We need the tools to build our ecosystem, this includes building relationships and taking different approaches/verticals/lanes. We have been too conservative in the past and reactive IMHO. We and this incubator committee aim to be proactive, by recognizing current bottlenecks and building our business relationships with the whole flow in mind. Stafan maybe you can make a flow chart for a dapp’s, as I suspect this will show the many bottlenecks teams will face when they attempt to build one. Altermail was delayed and had some issues finding devs, Anons had issues finding any front end devs and had to rely on a very spread thin SoD team and will take weeks for them to ship a simple website. We also don’t have competition within the ecosystem for these needs and that leads to stagnation and poorly fleshed out launches. These are legitimate ongoing issues IMO as we are now relying on the (few) teams themselves to solve these bottlenecks and they either don’t have the skills or resources to do so. I am excluding the larger dev shops from this opinion obviously. I will preemptively apologize for this comment but IMHO the previous team running BizDev failed to see the bigger picture and just operated on it’s own with zero input from the community. This would very much be a community resource and provide a higher level of support on the ground level. And much more!

2 Likes

I’m curious. What is the ballpark hourly rate you would be paying devs if this passes?

The hourly rate being paid to the leads in this proposal is 2x-3x what devs are getting paid via fellows/grants. I understand that people can say, “if the community is willing to pay non-technical leads that rate, so be it.” But if the community will also be paying devs through this discretionary budget that you control, how will that dev rate compare? If they are getting paid even more than the hourly rate of the non-technical leads because of their more scarce skillset, that discretionary budget won’t go as far. But it also doesn’t make sense for non-technical leads to still be getting 2x-3x the hourly rate of devs if both are funded from the same community proposal.

4 Likes

My feedback for this is that the part of funding projects comes across as a bit sus to the say the least when 64% of the budget is allocated for lead pay. At most you will fund 1, maybe 2?, projects and some bounty work.

I guess for the rest of the proposal it might be worth giving this a try.

2 Likes

Hi Mumuse, thanks for your feedback. I just want to reiterate that this proposal is not only to fund and support community members in becoming effective developers on the Network.

There is a significant amount of time that has been allocated towards attracting existing applications to deploy on Secret Network. There is also a significant amount of time allocated to the reports I intend to write which I hope may inspire teams to build applications of these types on Secret Network whilst also giving them different models that different applications to date have used. While it isn’t as difficult coding, it definitely isn’t easy.

While this proposal allocates 15-20 hours to me, realistically - there is no chance that I stick to that. I put 15-20 hours by my name because it’s the minimum I want to contribute in a week (which I am expecting to happen in two weeks late October, early November while I do some final work before an exam).

From the time the idea sprung (26-Sep) to today, I can say that I have easily spent 50 hours on items within this scope.

I also have the entire December off, by no means am I promising to commit to 50 to 60 hours each week during that period but I know for a fact that I will be aggressively working on items within the scope and potentially beyond it if time permits.

We also hope to disclose each development we make in terms of talking to applications. I am tracking each conversation I have had to date and am logging the progress of these.

My hope is that I can publicly share this at some point but I understand that certain projects/teams may want to keep this information quiet until they are ready to announce this.

2 Likes

Hey Baedrik, Glad you brought this up as it gives me the opportunity to explain some of our thinking further. We overemphasized the use of the discretionary fund as a dev pool, let us build a valid POC and see what we can put together before we talk full time devs etc. The fund is for incubating any form of business related activity first and foremost, with a strong focus on networking with our current and future dev talent pool as to foster growth and collaboration. If we did pay or give a “bounty” for something we saw fit dev related, it would be discussed amongst the leads as well as the community members or otherwise who saw the need for such a product. The dev pay, if applicable, would be in line with the product I would hope and well within any industry standards or better depending on the skills/ask etc. I personally don’t want to set a bad precedent regarding leads pay with our first on chain prop. I do feel the comp runs away from reality when the market soars. They also shrink with the market as well and we based this pay on the past months prices I admit sir. One thing I would like to note is that we also underestimated the amount of the time both Riaz and myself would commit, it will be substantially more, but this is not a valid counter argument and I don’t want to emphasize this as a reason for overcompensating non technical work in the future.

Valid critique, see my response to Beadrick about scope for fund. I want this dev piece to be a POC and then we can scale once proven. You are a dev no? I believe yes, and if so, we should talk. I want dev input and desirables regarding what it would take to get you to build a team or work for one here on SN.

My point is more along the lines of:

Your pay is based on old price data (most likely sub-$2 price data). Whenever you end up paying a dev from the discretionary budget, you will be using current price data. So when the proposal passes and your pay rate gets locked in, it will be one that will be substantially higher than what you will pay devs.

Right now the fact that committee leads get paid (in my opinion unreasonably) better than devs is due to the fact that the community is more willing to throw money around than the people that control the ecosystem fund.

But now you are setting up a system where even devs getting paid by the community will still be underpaid in comparison to committee leads, and those payments are coming from the exact same proposal. I think I would rather see a system where you help the devs you onboard create their own proposal so at least they have the chance to benefit from “old price data” and community generosity in the same way that you are. Just seems more fair than the system you are building. (or base your pay ask on current price data if that is what you will base future dev pay on. Honestly it feels that putting the proposal on-chain abnormally quickly was a strategic decision to make it more likely to pass at amounts based on old price data. If this was discussed for a week, you likely would have been persuaded to base it on more recent price data)

2 Likes

I can see your points, thanks for clarifying. I can also assure we didn’t race on chain because of some pending pump we knew about. This was to line up the quarter and we were actually delayed for several other reasons. I can see the optics and respect that view though.

Any and all devs will absolutely be encouraged to go on chain or via other funds and build a team in a perfect scenario. That would be amazing, 3-6 teams popping up every few months building several apps or defi tools. I imagine there will be many devs that come into our eco through awareness efforts like secret agents, we will assist in team building & amplifying the message. We don’t see ourselves paying for large scale projects, we aren’t funded that way currently. I can definitely say I’m an advocate for getting devs onboarded and paid well in various ways Baedrick.

Also I’d like to take this time and say ideally we need to fill the role of dev lead because, as you likely know, developer tooling and support is lacking and a very hard ask in this competitive landscape.

I think going forward we should recalibrate how we determine leads pay if that’s the growing consensus. Will discuss in Gov call tomorrow.

I can also assure we didn’t race on chain because of some pending pump we knew about.

According to the creation time, it was already at $3.5 when the proposal went on chain, so it was a pump that already happened, not a pending one. But I certainly admit that it is possible that you didn’t notice that it had pumped. Anyway, I don’t see any reason to debate motives for rushing to put it on-chain. All that matters is you had reasons, and it is there now.

Any and all devs will absolutely be encouraged to go on chain or via other funds and build a team in a perfect scenario. That would be amazing, 3-6 teams popping up every few months building several apps or defi tools. I imagine there will be many devs that come into our eco through awareness efforts like secret agents, we will assist in team building & amplifying the message. We don’t see ourselves paying for large scale projects, we aren’t funded that way currently. I can definitely say I’m an advocate for getting devs onboarded and paid well in various ways Baedrick.

Also I’d like to take this time and say ideally we need to fill the role of dev lead because, as you likely know, developer tooling and support is lacking and a very hard ask in this competitive landscape.

Ok, so are you thinking that instead of using the discretionary fund for devs you recruit, your plan is to use it to pay the dev lead (and maybe run hackathons), and then send devs you onboard to get community funding?

While that probably ends up being fairer for what the onboarded devs get paid, it then creates the issue of not using the discretionary budget quite as described. Unfortunately, these are the things that could get ironed out if discussed for a suitable time, but now that everything is already on-chain, revising things as questions come up is more difficult

2 Likes