Education Committee Funding Proposal (01 Dec 2021 - 18 Feb 2022)

This proposal is for the on-chain funding period 01 December 2021 to 28 February 2022.
(adjusted to 18 February, see follow up post from Stefan-001)

Purpose of the Education Committee

The Education Committee exists to create, update, and manage educational content to accelerate the use and adoption of Secret Network. We work closely with other committees to ensure our output is relevant and supports their and the overarching Secret Network goals. For full Education Charter see here: Education Committee Charter V1.1.pdf - Google Drive

Notable Deliverables in This Funding Period

Continual Deliverables

  • Maintain and organize educational content across Secret Network repositories
  • Assist with educational content (infographics, blog posts, articles, tutorials) for all launches of products and ecosystem components (such as bridges)
  • Organize and manage the education committee and its projects
  • Function as program management for all education-related SNACs
  • Manage master repository for educational documents for Secret Network
  • Migrate remaining educational content from Agent HQ to the Secret Network mainpage (

Project Deliverables

  • Describe Secret Network processes (flowcharts, guidelines, document templates)
  • Assess Secret Network website pages for ease of onboarding for new investors and developers ( “Learn”)
  • Create sub-pages Leader homepage on ( “Learn”)
  • Create Developer surveys for onboarding and skill assessments for new developers
  • Create a Developer homepage on ( “Develop”)
  • Create Secret pathways learning tracks for new developers

*for the full scope of work, committee organization, membership, and decision making process, please see the charter: Education Committee Charter V1.1.pdf - Google Drive

Performance Indicators by Which the Committee Can Be Held Accountable

Ultimately we believe the education committee should be judged on content created & maintained and the quality of that content. Currently, there is no ability to effectively measure the quality of content. As we revamp the agent HQ learning hub we will look to incorporate low-cost methods like thumbs up/down with the question ‘was this content helpful?’

For content created and maintained we propose a high level KPI that seeks to summarize the education committees activities: Content Created. The definition being any infographic, article, tutorial, video, webpage that was created by the committee and its members. Although the time and effort that goes into these pieces of content can vary widely, we believe that it, statistically, provides a measurement on the performance of the committee. Notable deviations from the target will see an explanation from the committee leadership. We have looked at the historical data over the past 3 months, so far as available, and estimate a target of 25 pieces of content is realistic. With that said, we do like to emphasize that this KPI is experimental.

Content created | target: 8/month.

Budget Request

The Education Committee asks for a budget for the compensated leadership roles and a discretionary budget to put bounties on open projects and reward committee members on top of the rewards they are able to earn through the Secret Agent Program.

In line with recent governance consensus, our ask is now in USD, calculated to SCRT on the day the proposal goes on the chain with a risk buffer.

For your reference:

  • Our June-August ask was 1,500 SCRT/month/person -15h @ $3,00/SCRT or ~$70/h
  • Our Septermber - November ask was 3,000 SCRT/month/person - 15h @ $1,50/SCRT or $70/h.

Compensated Roles

Dumdidum | 𝕊001 - $70/h - 15 hours per week - $4,500 / month

  • Current Education committee lead for 7 month
  • Project Lead for the Secret Network NFTgame Orbem Wars
  • Hired contractor for Secret Foundation (25h/week max) for project and program management.
  • 13 years professional experience in quality assurance, operational excellence, and continuous improvement with national & international companies in varying sizes from start-ups to SP500 companies
  • Content Creator, developer, and owner at/of the Game Development Center YT channel. Creating educational content for the Godot Game Engine. Produced nearly a hundred in-depth video tutorials among other education content and support.
  • Project lead, developer, and designer of the Secret Network NFTgame Orbem Wars.
  • Public speaker on varying topics including Game Design & Programming.

Darren | FuzzyPizza - $70/h - 15 hours per week - $4,500 / month

  • Current Education committee lead for 9 months
  • Creator of Agents HQ (, the primary hub for secret agents program
  • Led and/or contributed to over 90 completed Secret Network projects, spreading awareness and education using infographics, diagrams, and written articles
  • Managing consultant with 5 years of experience at a Big 4 accounting firm, delivering strategic IT transformation programs for Fortune 500 clients in the financial services, credit services, and banking sector. Skills include project management, strategic planning, technology education, process mapping, and org change management.
  • Concurrently working in a part-time capacity to support Altermail product growth

Discretionary Budget

The education committee requests a discretionary budget to compensate committee members for their work. This budget will be used to reward the completion of open projects like the creation of infographics, articles, written/video tutorials.

The Discretionary budget is based on:

  • 3 Types of open projects (infographics, articles/written tutorials, and video tutorials),
  • a base time per project type (1,5 hour, 4 hours, and 8 hours respectively),
  • expectation per project type (4/month, 8/month, 1/month respectively),
  • rewards at $40/h

These open project bounties will be on top of the rewards one can earn in the Secret Agent program. The two reward structures combined will result in fair compensation for these smaller projects. We are fully aware that the ‘hourly’ rate is not up to professional level (professional video editor, professional photoshop artist). However, we believe that people with such professional skills can use open-projects as a stepping stone to request SNAC funding, and we look forward to guiding such contributors in getting successfully funded for their ideas to grow the network.

The education committee has 1400 SCRT from previous funding rounds. Resulting from the steep increase of SCRT price during our last term. As a result, we believe the education committee is sufficiently funded for the coming 3 months in terms of the discretionary budget. Any SCRT left at the end of the funding period (3 months) will carry over to the next round. If both education leads discontinue their role the remaining funds will be transferred to the new leads.

Total Ask

  • Dumdidum | 𝕊001 = $4,500 / month
  • Darren | FuzzyPizza = $4,500 / month
  • Discretionary Budget = $0 (using SCRT budget from previous funding periods)

  • Total Proposal Spend for 3 Months: $27,000 + 10% volatility buffer = $29,700

As discussed on the governance call yesterday 15 December 2021. This is the breakdown/ calculation of the adjusted funding period.

In the past months, a consensus was reached in community governance to put proposals up denominated in USD, and calculate the SCRT value to ask the pool the moment of posting the proposal on-chain. A price volatility buffer of 10% was agreed upon with the notion that if the price drops to below 10% the original ask a proposer could go back to the chain for the difference.

Example: If you ask for $1,000 you can ask SCRT the value of $1,100, but if the value of the SCRT asked were to drop to $900 by the end of the deposit/voting period you can put up a second proposal. Any price change after receiving the money is of course the risk of the proposer.

This situation happened with this education committee proposal.
We asked $27,000 + 10% volatility = $29,700 with SCRT @ $4,98 = 5,963.86 SCRT
The voting period ended SCRT was @ $3,92. For a total worth of $23,378.33 / 13,41% lower than original ask of $27,000.

On Tuesday we made a suggestion to the governance channel to, instead of going on-chain with a second proposal, we shorten the funding period by a couple of days to bring the value of received SCRT in line with our initial ask.
Main benefits are:

  • No new governance proposal
  • Keeps governance dashboard clean
  • No requirement for people to vote again
  • Reduces governance fatigue

This suggestion was discussed in the Governance meeting on the 15th and met no objections.

Calculation and conclusion
For the calculation, we will use SCRT @ $4,00 as SCRT has been trading around the $4,00 range in the past 40 hours
Our original ask was $4,500 per month per person
Total received = $4,00 * 5964 = $23856
$23856 / 2 people / $4,500 = 2,65 months instead of 3 months or ~10 days less.

The new funding period for the Education Committee will be 1 December - 18 February.

1 Like

What’s the point of the buffer if the downside gets refunded anyway except boosting the upside? Will you extend the period if price goes up?

1 Like

Not gonna pick a fight over such a stupidly small sum of money and ultimately I’m fine with it anyway but

Retroactively changing the terms of a proposal after it passed is not a good precedent
Pretty random 40 hour window

If we’re going to start seeing retroactive adjustments when price goes down, we better start seeing the opposite when price goes up.

1 Like

That was a point brought up in the Governance meeting yesterday. The discussion didn’t really lead to a guideline, but generally speaking, I think everybody agreed to if that gap is large enough it is an unwritten expectation that those funds are to be put to good use in some form or way.

Funding period extension could be an option, but if the price would make a big move that period may become longer than someone originally intended to fill a role, as such it wasn’t considered to be a good general guideline. It is a discussion we should probably continue as a community.

Retroactive adjustments were made part of the guidelines by community consensus. If you’re opposed to that definitely let your voice be heard in the Governance meeting.

Sidenote, 40 hours isn’t random. It is the exact hours passed between the end of the voting period of proposal 66 and the writing of the post.

It is pretty random because you decided to immediately come back to the post after passing and ask to adjust the proposal, when the reasonable thing would have been for waiting on the volatility to subside.

Price is now 6% higher from your 4.00 price only a few hours later. Why don’t you adjust the proposal again?

1 Like

No, the proposal passed Tuesday, after which I suggested the solution presented in my earlier post to the governance channel on Discord. We decided to schedule it for Wednesday’s meeting and discussed it at that time.

Whatever the price movement of SCRT after the passing of the proposals is a risk/reward on the proposer (for all you know, I already sold it). So I could have used the $3,92 SCRT price with which the proposal came out of voting. Instead, as the price has fluctuated between $3,72 and $4,20, we went with a number higher than what we should technically use, in favor of the community funds. So if you are saying you would prefer this to be non-arbitrary, I would be happy to change it back to 3,92 and cut the funding period by 12 days instead of 10.

What are you talking about risk/reward, you literally shortened your proposal when you got a price you didn’t like and rushed to post to “lock” it in lol. Not only that but you said not to propose again to keep it clean but it’s obvious you are doing it in order to avoid 7 day voting window where you would be forced to wait out some volatility.

Whatever, enjoy the 10 days you saved up on not working man!

Oh and your point about changing it to 3.92 just shows your bad faith on all this gj on that one.

1 Like

We merely apply the guidelines we set forth as a community. There is no ‘waiting out volatility’, how long does one have to wait? Who carries the risk of waiting out volatility? There is so many more questions we would have to answer as a community in what you suggest.

I thought your problem was with the 40 hours. The non-arbitrary part, I understand now your problem is with the governance guidelines we set forth as a community. I can’t change those.

Waiting out is forced by proposing again and waiting the 7 days. You avoided this forced window by basically saying “oh guys lets not waste time voting again” (lol) and non-surprisingly price is now higher than the price you chose. My issue is with the 40 hours because another proposal takes 168 hours.

There is no risk reward when you instantly go to change things when price is unfavorable, there is only reward potentially.

1 Like

A proposal would still require an SCRT price to be taken for the calculation of the SCRT ask. So there isn’t a difference. Again if you take issue with the price I choose. I can make it non-arbitrary, but I choose a price in favor of the community, so I’m not sure what your issue is at this point.

Yeah, and if SCRT appreciated from that point, would result in your “I think everybody agreed to if that gap is large enough it is an unwritten expectation that those funds are to be put to good use in some form or way” whereas now the community got a proposal for 10 less days that originally intended.

Whatever, I’m done arguing about this.

1 Like

This is certainly a weird situation in that some people could win or lose dependent on the market. Our risk is that if people lose, they could choose to take the money and run, and not fulfill their obligations defined by the proposal. We’ve seen people leave mid-period before, and money has never been refunded. If something like Infrastructure incurred this loss while on-chain, they literally might not be able to afford to purchase the products agreed upon in the proposal! If the price goes up while on-chain, not only does the recipient have to deal with the tax obligations of receipt at the higher price, but also will have the eyes of the community on them the next time they propose, if we’re all aware that there was significant disparity between the ask and the receipt.

The buffer is in place so that this isn’t an issue incredibly often, but obviously we need a structure in place for when it does. The potential solutions to this problem include:

  1. Add an additional proposal on chain
    a. This would lead to voter fatigue
    b. It will get messy as the price goes up or down while the supplementary proposal is on-chain
  2. Have the Foundation subsidize proposals
    a. They’re an independent company that doesn’t have to do this
    b. This would get super weird if the gap is substantial
  3. Have the proposer suck it up and eat the loss
    a. They may choose not to
    i. This leads to lost funds AND lost human capital
    b. This can really hurt the proposer
  4. Shorten the proposed term
    a. It makes the arbitrary dates less pretty…

Obviously #4 is the easiest solution to employ. What we need to do now, as this is the first utilization of this proposed solution, is standardize its deployment, which is what @Stefan_DomeriumLabs is trying to do. Some notes on this subject:

  1. We are never to assume investment after deployment of funds. Funds being deployed as invested tokens is not a feature, which is how we got in this situation in the first place. Whether price goes up or down AFTER receipt of funds, calculations will be done as though they were in the dollar amount at time of receipt.
  2. Time should only be shortened based on comparison of price to the original dollar ask, not to the 10% buffer… or else the 10% buffer would just be a universal raise and not a buffer at all.

All of this is being done properly and by the book here. If you’d like to argue that there should be some kind of threshold by which committees will have longer periods if the price goes up while on chain we could have that conversation in more detail in governance. While it wouldn’t work for all types of proposals, it certainly could for committees… but these committees are offering goods and services to the community, as voted on-chain.


I already made my argument. Waiting 40 hours or any amount under what another proposal would take is completely arbitrary. Trying to spin this as doing it in the benefit of the community is dishonest.

Nobody voted on-chain a shortening of the proposal.

1 Like

They voted on-chain for a proposal, which was based on a forum post, which deemed the payment in USD, as decided in Secret Governance. What went live on-chain ended up not being a factual representation of the proposal made.

Not trying to get you into another discussion, but would you prefer Eric’s #1 method (the one that was originally discussed in governance calls, and a majority of validators in the Validator Survey support)?

This would have lead to secondary spend proposal for 923.89 SCRT.

Regarding the upcoming ‘Secret Network Charter & Code of Conduct’ signalling proposal I’m planning to include this alternative solution in the draft for further feedback from the validators. Definitely would like to encourage everyone to also discuss it in here as this is the first actual application of it.

Yes additional funding should be voted.

This would have lead to secondary spend proposal for 923.89 SCRT.

Fine with me, I would have supported it and if there were any excess then they could direct it to the discretionary budget.

1 Like

And the solution instead of fixing it on-chain was to just arbitrarily adjust the terms of the proposal, after a completely arbitrary window, choosing a completely arbitrary price right before a 5% rebound in price. LMAO.

1 Like

I agree to all the points presented here, except one thing.

There appears to be some consternation around the number’s Stefan is using in their estimate, which shouldn’t be an argument. Their proposal that goes on chain should be updated to the price of SCRT at the time of posting - not based off of a rolling estimate. If the price continues to go down, they get more SCRT to make up the difference. If it goes up, they get less.

One thing I’ll also add is I think we should reduce the length of proposals from 7 to 5 days. 7 days is outside the norm in the cosmos ecosystem, and adds further volatility in the price action, as outlined by @Ewais001 above.

1 Like

Wait - can you expand on this more? I don’t follow.