Not sure why I would be misleading anyone. Please explain.
You can still change your vote when you think otherwise. Feel free to.
4 Likes
Itās not about me. Changing the vote is not the same as voting again.
If you are so confident in your offer, you should give people the right to discuss your offer in detail before voting.
You did not follow a very basic rule.
In this case, an honorable person would withdraw his/her proposal.
If you continue like this, Iām afraid this will create a bad precedent for future proposals as well.
Actually the secretapi wasnāt funded through a community spend proposal.
Iām not sure if it will continue considering we now have Figmentās DataHub / Secret Network integration.
3 Likes
In this case, I donāt care anymore who voted what and whether this proposal will pass. Now the only thing I care about is the implementation of the rule set for the discussion time of the proposals. This proposal should be withdrawn and voted again after a week of discussion. I just want the rules to be followed. Once this rule is broken, we will have entered a very uncharted area.
Oh, no I wasnāt referring to your comment. There was mention above that the secretapi was funded via the community pool and I just wanted to clear that up.
2 Likes
This proposal did not follow even the most basic rule (discussion time). What double standards are you talking about???
(delete again IAN)
I donāt believe the Foundation should comment on proposals directly though I have often my own personal opinions as to the cost and value of proposals. However, the Foundation should comment on and try to enforce processes. I want to make a couple of notes:
-
We did previously try to set an expectation in the governance process that there should be a period of time for open discussion of proposals on the forum before they are made to the blockchain. My understanding is this was not clearly communicated to the proposers. As a result there is some confusion now around next steps.
-
Itās not clear to me what best practices should be around how the community pool is deployed when it comes to things like open-source vs not. I donāt think this has been concretely established (in contrast to discussion time, which I believe was established as a norm though not communicated well here.) I would like the Enigma development team to weigh in on this thread, or perhaps Figment as well. The standards for the on-chain pool might be different than a Foundation grant, or an ecosystem fund grant.
We can discuss the merits of this proposal and next steps for the proposal process here. We have had proposers withdraw proposals in the past, followed by resubmissions. We have had proposals withdrawn permanently at the choosing of the proposers. I think as a community we would like to see this type of tipbot initiative funded and executed, but there are still open questions about funding amount, the implementation (fees and open-source), as well as process. Letās continue the discussion but with new perspectives and new points, not rehashing the points already made here.
7 Likes
Good point. I wasnāt aware DataHub isnāt open source. I find it to be problematic - no double standards.
The whole point of decentralized governance is to be able to (civilly) discuss topics, and itās perfectly fine to have differing opinions.
My (and Enigmaās) concerns stand. Re: discussing over the forum, it is not a āruleā but a best practice that has very good motivation behind it. Gathering feedback before going for an on-chain vote goes a long way in understanding community sentiment and provides ways in which proposals can be improved before being finalized.
Regardless, @Deneme, I also urge you to adopt better discussion etiquette and be respectful to other members ā āthe words of the wise are heard in quietā.
4 Likes
I was under the impression that DataHub is mostly an infrastructure project.
At Enigma we try to open source as much as we can, and obviously the blockchain itself is open source and most if not all of the tooling and docs around it are open source as well. So this is mostly what made us decide to vote no on this proposal.
Splitting the grants between multiple chains and charging a fee to cover you costs - I get it, but I wish you were more upfront about it.
2 Likes
I think it would make sense to add a field for āProposal Discussion Forumā as link to the government proposal module. This would make it clear that this procedure is wished for. Even when it is optional.
It could also be required, therefore making it obvious that this procedure is the way how proposals should be created for the community pool.
7 Likes
I echo the sentiment that we must be able to discuss things in a civilized manner. There will ALWAYS be differences in opinion in this Network and likely any other decentralized Network. The only way we can have effective Governance is by being respectful, focusing on the benefits, drawbacks, AND intents behind things.
@Immasssi and @Tosch110 did NOT have malicious intent as implied by going directly to the on-chain proposal. They were unaware of the āstandardā process which has not been really that well documented anywhere. They had some discussions with some of us about wanting to propose this and it was never communicated to them (and Iāll take some blame for not making it clear it should go to the forum first in my excitement).
@Deneme you have some valid points sometimes but your communication style is very harmful to productive discussion. Please letās try to refrain from personal attacks on any parties. Also maybe, just maybe, try to be positive once in a while. Life is exciting and grand and full of possibilitiesā¦be happy!
I do see the point about the double standard as it relates to the Figment proposal. While we can be a bit skeptical about some of these things letās realize that weāre all in this boat together. Itās understandable that there is a bit of competition amongst various actors in the ecosystem, but I hope others realize as I eventually did (Iām going to admit I did not have this mindset at the beginning) that itās better to support others rather than tearing them down.
I voted yes in my excitement to have a tipbot at hand because I feel it adds a lot to the community. I personally want to give people SCRT. That said, after these discussions, which should be the enforced norm, I do consider the fee, closed source nature, and ask amount to be factors that need to be adequately addressed. I, like @anon60841010, am prepared to see this proposal removed and re-submitted to enforce the norms of discussion prior to voting.
5 Likes
Hi Tosch110
Given the depth of discussion on other points would like to clarify a minor point.
Not suggesting you would data harvest. But that is twitters business model.
Thus SCRT of Twitter is like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted.
Did not mean to offend.
2 Likes
Couple of thoughts on this - I fully believe the SG1 team is highly skilled and that the end product would get created to the standards with which this community holds. In addition, it is a tool that would be helpful to the awareness committee, individuals who went to āspread the loveā so to speak, and a variety of other uses. I view the community pool as a means for fostering growth - part of that is taking small leaps of faith on people. I think that is completely acceptable if done with correct expectations and transparency. SG1 has a track record of excellence, so I am in support of this type of proposal.
Have I had a chance to talk with SG1 about this proposal? Nope. Do I believe in their people and that the end product is needed? Yes. Would I hope every project is open-sourced? Absolutely. Is a close-sourced project a non-starter? Not necessarily. I would hope that certain trusted individuals in the community would have the opportunity to code review periodically, or some sort of in-between structure between open-source & close source.
Concerning the unofficial protocol of posting on the forums first - I think this is something that could be ironed out on a governance call as their is always a strange gray area for off-chain expectations. I appreciate the level of dialogue happening on this thread so I āraise a glassā to that.
*as a caveat I will say I am more than happy to see a re-vote on this proposal, but in general I agree with the proposal on a personal level
Cheers,
-> Carter Woetzel -> Education Committee Lead -> Secure Secrets Co-Founder
6 Likes
Will be free forever, up to a limit of 100k/daily, itās currently in beta with 2.5M/daily.
1 Like
DataHub, you have to create an account first
Just learnt secretapi will be deprecated in favour of DataHub.
Agree on this, but my point is more that running an API server which is only a fullnode and not part of an internal network of validator and sentries, would be less reliable than one that is. And running an API server for such services is probably a common exercise for most validators, so I feel this shouldnāt be an additional cost.
3 Likes
That was me, sorry was mistaken about that, thanks for clearing that up.
1 Like
Dunno if DataHub not being open is an issue, as mentioned itās infra and we all run that stuff so we know what it is, they will differ in tools used to automate etc, and thereās an API server like Kong to manage accounts and rate limit. The indexing of txs is probably moreorless what puzzle uses.
Of course itās your choice if you want to build on open source tech, charge a fee to build it, and also charge a fee to use it. Some might feel theyāre paying three times to use it 
4 Likes
Deliverables/Budget Secrettipbot
3 weeks of development & testing
Branding & community building (Brand, Giveaways, Guides)
Server cost
Maintenence (Open ended)
All this considered, we think the offer at 18.5k SCRT is more than fair.
Yes, we included a fixed 5% maintenance fee on tips which is a sustainability measure. In the early days of operation it will not cover a fraction of the operating expenses. Also we plan to decrease the fee as adoption increases.
Hopefully this gives better insight and shows that its not just a 3 week development effort. We are constantly looking to add benefitial features and capabilities to the app to facilitate batch tipping, better UI and ways to increase exposure of the tool.
2 Likes
In regards to the open source debate we would like to add that yes we intend to open source the app. Nevertheless, in the early stages it will be closed source.
3 Likes
@Immasssi It is not in our interest to have this tip bot created at this time.
There is no urgency for it, there are other more impressive projects being worked on who are not requiring funding from the community pool. It raises some eyebrows that a tip bot would be an exception to those projects given its nature.
- The proposal did not meet regular proposal standards. People did not have enough time to weigh in on the matter. Especially with the holidays around the corner.
- There is triple dipping involved.
- Its closed source development.
Will consider if:
- Done in the proper way.
- Fees are for the community pool or foundation.
- Opensource development.
Thank you.