Development Committee Charter and Q1 Funding Proposal

I like the direction this committee is going, especially with regards to mentorship. This is the type of thing I was fighting for in the Support proposal. Thank you!

One suggestion - can you please update the top-level post with the changes?


Looks like the forum won’t let me edit after too much passed time. Below is the final proposal reflecting the updated 3 month ask. Note: I’ve increased the anticipated allocation of mentors from 3 to 5 given the updated 3 month timeframe. And of course, any unused budget will carry over.

Q1 Funding Proposal - March. 1st 2022 to May 31st 2022
The Development Committee seeks funding for:

Base Compensation Dev Committee Leads
Gino - $150/hr @ 10hrs/week - 13 weeks + 1 weeks (backpay) = $21,000 USD
Lumi - $150/hr @ 10hrs/week - 13 weeks = $19,500 USD
Xiph - $150/hr @ 10hrs/week - 13 weeks = $19,500 USD

Discretionary Budget

  • Code Repo Micro Bounties - estimating 7 repos at max 500 SCRT per repo = $17,500 USD
  • Mentorship Program - estimating 5 mentors at max 6hrs/week per mentor @ $150/hr = $58,500 USD
  • Secret Talks - Max $100 USD per talk = $1,300 USD

$137,300 USD

Total with 10% Buffer:
$151,030 USD

Carry Over
Any budget not used in Q1 will carry-over to the next funding period

Note there was a small math mistake submitted earlier. This edit reflects the correct values and here’s a spreadsheet showing the breakdown Secret Network Dev Committee Funding 2022-03-01 to 2022-05-31 - Google Sheets

1 Like

Thank you! I think moving to 3 months is the right path forward as well.

1 Like

Thank you for this great initiative & set up

Personally I think the hourly rates are too high, for not much auditable activities & outcomes, but lead and participation plans.
While it can match with some actual private market business practices, i consider these efforts to be community oriented ones, while they look like individual businesses on top of a community fund.

I am definitely not denying the need for incentives, and i would be pleased to be paid that much for such parallel/partial activities, however i am afraid that model doesn’t benefit to the community contribution spirit. I am surely too altruist, and/or greedy, your call.
I would suggest to start lower and get better rewarded when relevant.

just my feedback


Generally, as dev committee lead I will strive to make sure that every contribution to the committee meets certain standards. If it is code, I will make sure it’s documented, in good working order, and adds value (not complexity) to the community. If meetings, I will ensure that every topic is relevant and produces more chances of new code getting contributed to the community.

Can you explain exactly what’s the scope of a lead in this committee ? It sounds like you’ll review PR & organize the meetings ? What is the need for 3 leads (if it’s code review they could have been mentors from what I can tell?) & how do you plan on allocating work among the 3 ?

165$/hour is ~350$/year, which seems fine for an EM but why would we need 3 if dev / code is not in the lead scope.

I find the leads total $ amount quite high, I would have been fine with 1 lead and 2 as mentors but this sounds a bit stretched. Putting into perspective there are dev projects from grants that got way less than 3 month lead salaries for the current committee structure.

Edit: Since there is only a link to the forum thread on your proposal could you edit the first post with the actual proposal so that people don’t have to scroll down this thread to see it ? How much SCRT is the proposal asking for etc … There should be more info in the proposal description box


I’m sorry. But 150/hr = 350k/year.
We are not getting 150/hr worth of value here.

I would support for a much lower compensation. After one year of doing this, if you show with metrics the value that you have brought, I would welcome an increase in pay that is commensurate with the value that you bring. At this time, with the current reimbursement structure, it’s a hard no from me.

1 Like

If you’re not going to be doing any dev work under those 10 hours as lead then the compensation at a tech level of 150$ is not justified. I also don’t see the value in having 3 leads.

I’ll support 150$/hr for the mentorship section, since I think that’s extremely valuable, not for the lead pay.


Is there really 30 man hours per week worth of work for the lead responsibilities? Copy and pasting from the charter:

Lead Responsibilities include:

  • Maintain a list of active and engaged Committee Members and their contributions.
  • Manage the Committee discretionary budget and appropriate funding amounts to community code repositories that satisfy all AC.
    • Provide a helping hand or listen to the needs of developer(s) with in-progress work in the Committee Code Repositories to ensure best chance of success
  • Help facilitate the connection of committee members with other Secret Network community members.
  • Plan and lead committee meetings with a focus on keeping the members excited about attending because of upcoming guest speakers or other valuable knowledge transfer events.
  • Collaborate with other committees to help satisfy cross-functional needs throughout the community.

Thank you for the presented statement.
As a CIO, I understand the competition for talent is ever increasing.
I appreciate the proposal. The questions which I have are not in objection to the recommendation, yet to raise awareness and contribution.

Is there a business development manager/organized leadership?
Metrics help support focus toward an achievable goal, will the dev(s) have specific measurables which may be incentivized as a cost control and still offer positive commitment to maintain deliverables?
Can metrics be shared with project timelines for informational purposes? (even as an opt-in for those interested).
Establishing stds, checks and balances, documentation, quality controls…all benefit the future of development. Good work overall. If I can contribute additional ideas please feel free to contact me.
Thank you



I have no issues with the hourly rates proposed here. However, I second the interest in learning more about the thought process behind 3 leads.

For instance, combining the meeting notes and the proposal, this seems to be the current ask:

30 hours of leads / week
9 hours of code repos / week
- $17.5k discretionary / 13 weeks / $150 per hour
30 hours of mentors / week
- $58.5k discretionary / 13 weeks / $150 per hour

Given the combined 39 hours per week of code repos and mentorship, my intuition is that there’s only a need for 1 lead at 10 hours per week.

This would put the ratio of lead to non-lead time at closer to 26% rather than the existing 77%.

I actually have some other questions. Why would mentorship not be under the purview of the education committee? I get the charter of the education committee is more focused on a broader definition of education, but mentorship is pretty textbook education.

Based on other peoples comments here I think I also agree that the $150/hr rate for mentorship is excessive and three leads for the described responsibilities is excessive.

The more I think about it, the more I think mentorship isn’t necessary. We don’t need to train new developers, we need to make the onboarding experience better. There’s no shortage of developers and all things considered, there’s nothing special about becoming a developer on Secret. It’s a Rust-based smart contract platform like any other. The stuff that is specific to Secret that is interesting is solved with a better onboarding experience, including but not limited to better documentation, better tutorials, and better community code repos.

Regarding community code repos, perhaps a better approach is a separate proposal specific to funding the development and maintenance of community code repos, in an ideal world something like OpenZeppelin. Top quality code requires lots of money and focused effort, and I don’t think we’re going to get that quality with bounties, even if the bounties are large.

Regarding making the meetings exciting so people will attend- I don’t actually think this is necessary. Meetings are not inherently valuable. The focus should be on adding value in specific ways, and only then should we have meetings if they’re deemed necessary.

Put another way, for $150k usd over 3 months, we could fund cutting edge defi apps to fill gaps on the network, or we could fund the complete creation of a Secret Network v1 OpenZeppelin, or we could fund a number of other projects that would drive traffic and adoption. Given that these are simple and generally inarguable sources of value, I think there needs to be a convincing argument that this $150k usd would result in a significantly larger amount of value than actual usable products that could be funded with that money.

1 Like

Hi @gino

While I’m not 100% familiar with the boundaries of responsibility between the education and development committee roles, I can easily recognize the sore points you’re targeting and attempting to address with the proposal you’ve outlined. I think targeting DX makes sense, and you’ve done an excellent job coming up with some ways to move forward.

A couple of thoughts:

  1. Documentation, tutorials, and code samples are crucial for adoption. As such, I fully support the notion of funding bounties for code repositories. I’d personally like to see these blessed repositories consolidated in a central location, perhaps under the Secret Foundation Github organization. That way the foundation has the ability to grant permissions. Otherwise, there’s risk of external repositories going stagnant - someone with good intentions develops a repository with some very useful code samples, but due to changing circumstances, doesn’t have the time to keep the code up-to-date, review PRs, or read issues. By having these repos under the Secret Foundation, you could grant someone else appropriate permissions under those circumstances.

  2. I keep thinking about the mentorship idea and of ways to ensure a return of value. As documentation, code samples, and tutorials will be a work-in-progress effort, supplementing this in the midterm is how I see mentorship working well - though probably for what I’m thinking, the tutoring is the term that would probably be most appropriate. Here’s an idea - have a service where someone can post their question and request a live session with one of the tutors. If a tutor is available, they’re connected right away and can share their screen and work with the tutor to get past their hurdle. If a tutor is busy or occupied, they wait in a queue. Tutors could make their availability known to the service so students are aware in advance. You could go further and vet the students before allowing them access to the tutoring service if needed. I think the foundation could actually charge for this service to recover some of the cost too. Anyhow, just a thought, but I know I’m biased as that’s the kind of service I’d personally be willing to pay for, and too, would love to get to the point where I could fulfill the tutor role as well.

  3. I wanted to mention, that aside from what’s outlined in the proposal, I think one of the biggest efforts we can do that would have immediate value is to assure a timely upgrade to CosmWasm, and have a plan to keep development in-sync with the latest version. Both Secret Network and CosmWosm teams would benefit if we could tap into each other’s resources more in terms of documentation, tutorials, and support via Discord. Perhaps some formal collaboration with the team to avoid redundant efforts might make sense as well. Related to this, it would be a shame I think to see code repositories, tutorials to be developed for CosmWasm v0.10 and then see them all go out-of-date when we finish the upgrade to v1.0. So coordinating and aligning these efforts go hand-in-hand.

I’m happy to see all of the movement and progress here. What a great community.



Allow me to address the general concern of a 3 person - 30 man hour / week co-lead structure.

This idea was presented to me by Secret Foundation and I was also skeptical at first. However, after some deeper contemplation it became clear this would be an ideal structure. Lumi, Xiph, and I have truly complementary skillsets that are essential to agile software development.

Lumi will lead in smart contract development, Xiph will lead in frontend expertise, and I in program delivery. Generally speaking, the highest performing teams in software development always include these specializations. As a community that wants to grow and succeed at becoming a top layer 1 chain we should provide our core contributors with a structure that encourages talent to operate where it feels most specialized.

There is more than enough work ahead of us to fill the allotted 30 man-hours. I imagine most large product companies have much larger budgets going to product evangelism than this. Community Code Repositories will exist with the primary goal of attracting outside talent to help grow the ecosystem but Lumi and Xiph will also help to develop repositories that have not been picked up by anyone. Anticipate some overlap among dev leads and CCR builders as we crank up the flywheel.

I believe a lean and agile team that operates as one mind, similar to those seen at top startups and other tech companies, will prove its ability to deliver higher quality content for the community. Decentralization and web3 is more than just running software in a permissionless environment. It’s also about bringing together people with shared passions and allowing them to quickly squad up to create something awesome together.

re: using the money to fund awesome defi apps: The community pool is already setup for this. Any team or individual is welcome to create a pitch. A dev committee is still needed to help grow network momentum and knowledge transfer. The committee’s purpose is to help make the Secret Network a phenomenal place to build for those future teams.

1 Like

Voted no, primarily due to jumping on chain immediately after changing the whole structure, but also because I think the proposed structure is not sufficiently justified.

1 Like

sure, agreed, but you won’t be doing software development for the base lead section and yet you intend to get compensated as if the rate was dev work

1 Like

Overall, I support this proposal and will be voting Yes.

It’s not clear to me that it will be effective in consuming its discretionary budget (7 repos and a total of 390 mentorship hours). However, this should be easy enough to evaluate at the end of May.

For what I consider a relatively modest ask given the target deliverables, I think it is a more than worthwhile experiment.

As a non-programmer, I would like to have a way to check on the work that is executed. How and where can we watch your progress?

Not part of the proposing group, but they did share these:


Meeting Notes:

As far as I can see, that github contains only a two-line readme document.

Secret dreamscape github is returning a Page Not Found - 404.

Thank you all for voting to fund the dev committee. This is an important step in driving high quality developments to Secret. Privacy in web3 should not be an afterthought like it was in web2 and the dev committee is ready to make that happen by putting the 0’s and 1’s where they’re needed most.

You can track our progress in the meeting notes and community code repositories. Expect the content of these items to increase substantially over the next quarter.

re: Secret DreamScape - we’re still working on getting the code ready to open up on Github. We appreciate your patience and will have it ready to share soon.

1 Like