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

This was suggested and opened for feedback in the Governance call in which no objections were made. In fact, several people expressed a preference for this method as it is cost-neutral and reduces Governance fatigue. We aren’t doing this out of nowhere, we discussed this with many core contributors and validators yesterday.

Because nobody wants to waste time on arguing something so minor and petty, which I would have also not done had you not brought out that attitude of “you should be thankful I didn’t use X price”.

I think we spent almost 25 minutes on it…

Definitely an interesting topic I’ll add to the agenda of next Governance call. Lately we’ve only been reaching quorum on the last day so it seems like 7 days isn’t too much. The new bot / channel on Telegram to announce new proposals and in the future also send personalized reminders could hopefully help get people voting earlier. I already do send reminders to the validators so I’m not sure if it will have that much additional benefit, worth the try though. Lots of aspects to discuss, but definitely interesting topic!

This is true for all chains, though. I don’t think it has to do with the full duration, but the “time limit”, if that makes sense.

Yeah that’s a good point, probably a lot of people think ‘we still have half a week to vote, we’ll do so later’, with shorter timespans that might be reduced strongly.

1 Like

I don’t remember when the governance call was given authority to make decisions unilaterally. We’ve said in the past not everyone can make a call.

With that said. I’m fine if people want to do a true up at the time the vote passes on the length of the proposal, but I just want both of the sides of the outcomes to be respected. I also don’t want a buffer at all if this is the case. If people want to go on chain and get their time period shortened based on the change in price, I’d also like to see extensions done. I don’t like the have your cake and eat it too attitude.

1 Like

We’ve had forum posts and decided to do proposals in terms of USD instead of in terms of SCRT. The Education proposal was written in the forums with clear denominations in USD. The calculation to amount of SCRT was only done right when put on chain, and then given a 10% buffer. By the time the proposal passed, the conversion used for the ask on-chain no longer accurately represented the essence of the proposal, as depicted in the forum, which was being voted on.

Existential argument I suppose, but I argue that the forum post is the actual proposal, and what goes on chain is the representation.

1 Like

This would make for an interesting independent forum conversation if you’d like to spin up a post.

No its very much what this topic is about

1 Like

Yes it’s relevant. It should be an independent and titled forum to get proper involvement. You argue that governance calls can’t make unilateral decisions, and I argue that they DEFINITELY shouldn’t be made 20 comments down on a different named forum post for a previous proposal that already passed. If you make an independent forum post @pmuecke can reference it and we can drive involvement there, and talk about it at the next governance meeting, and even put forth signaling proposals if you think that’s required.

If you want to see change, that is how it’s done. Not 20 comments down on a previous post.

Which community members set these guidelines? Since when was the gov meeting the place to discuss final changes to proposals after proposals had already passed? “governance guidelines set forth as a community.” really? when? where? Also volatility buffer for proposals that don’t include the purchasing of actual items is useless and makes no sense. You’re making $70/hour for light work ffs, fulfill your obligations without all this extra nonsense.

This is a very good point, but it’s a good place to get a first impression. This discussion topic has been sent to all validators yesterday as well asking for their input. If there is negative feedback Edu can always go back to the chain again for the remainder (although sooner is better imo). The sentiment yesterday was that we should prevent additional proposals if possible to prevent voting fatigue, but that is definitely not a hard set rule or anything yet. This topic will also be part of the discussion for the ‘Secret Network Charter & Code of Conduct’ signalling proposal draft that is on the way. But since it’s already happening right now with a proposal I’d like to see it discussed here as well.

It was only the first place to have the discussion, technically I guess it’s the second place since @Stefan_DomeriumLabs already posted about it the night of the passing of the proposal on the Governance discord channel. Nevertheless, this forumpost is an extention of the discussion allowing everyone else that couldn’t make the call to weigh in.
You are right it hasn’t been on-chain yet and thus isn’t truely approved by governance, but neither have the base USD evaluation, volatility buffer, or code of conduct technically. And I’d like to argue that at least the USD evaluation is already readily accepted, proposals have passed with volatility buffers, and people really want a code of conduct.

I don’t like the recent trend of on-chain proposals using terminology such as “as per governance” or “as was discussed on the gov call”. This makes it seem like this is something universally agreed upon by the community, when in reality it only highlights a handful of people speaking.

Personally, I would prefer if proposals were submitted without the use of any volatility buffer and without changing dates/prices. If the price drastically falls, then the proposer can simply put up another proposal.


Thank you for your input, it is much appreciated :slight_smile: We definitely should make sure we keep a clear distinction between what has passed on-chain and what hasn’t yet.

Maybe it’s distracting a bit too much from the original topic, but what would you consider a drastical fall in price?

To me, a “drastic fall in price” would be a drop that affects the ability of the proposer to execute the proposal. I’d rather view it on a case by case basis rather than having some objective threshold (10%, etc.).


That’s definitely an interesting alternative we need to discuss, it would make things easier (which is always good), it would probably be at the cost of potentially more proposals going on chain (not necessarily a bad thing but we need to make sure people will still show up to vote).

1 Like

I would love to help with Spanish content for educational content, 3d animations, comics, FAQs, trivias, would love to help!