Governance proposals requesting funds denominated in SCRT introduce inefficiencies and can either hurts proposal execution (too little USD) or wastes funds (too much USD) the proposal execution. Recently, we voted abstain on two worthy proposals by capable teams because the USD amount is not in line with the task at hand (we did not vote NO bc the unused amounts rollover and we trust the fiduciary responsibilities of said teams)
From here on, 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 denominated 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.
Hi mate, I hope you’re doing well - I just wanted to give a bit of background on why the price became much greater than what we expected.
Our final proposal was ready on 29 September. At this date, we were just waiting for some final confirmations from parties we were obtaining feedback from. At this date, the price of SCRT was around $1.92.
When we posted the Forum post on 02 October, the price had increased to $2.55. Although this was a healthy increase, the Network had remained quite stable through the months before this. Therefore, I did not think adjusting it at this time was logical as I thought it may return back to its previous level.
Since then, SCRT has experienced another 50% of growth. I can’t imagine anyone could’ve expected this much growth, this quickly.
I thank you for the confidence you had in the team and acknowledge that which we should improve on.
The education committee has always pegged the SCRT amount to a $/ h amount: $70/h. Our SCRT ask has been based on this, and our calculations transparent. Over our 2 terms we have adjusted our SCRT ask as the price fluctuated, but in $ terms it has remained the same.
We take the 25-day moving average, but also consider recent trends to make adjustments up or down, so far, we have always adjusted in favor of the network. Justification is always in the proposal.
There is zero need to denominate in SCRT and deal with how to average prices, price volatility and then facing what we are dealing with now (more USD than necessary).
Today it is too more money than necessary, tomorrow it could be less money. Either way, the community suffers.
I’d like to hear why it should be denominated in SCRT, given that there is a fair and transparent way to payout in SCRT an USD denominated amount.
Because the spend proposal is sent to the chain with an SCRT value to be paid out by the smart contract. Verifying the spend amount in the proposal with the text is important to verify to correctness of the proposal.
Just throwing some thoughts, from my observations.
I’m in support of the all suggestions for transparency, that seem optimal to implement.
As far as proposal pay for devs and those leading, they earned it!
As investors we love the project and see the potential, so we each participate as we can hoping to see future gains, from Secrets success!
Crypto is a gamble in general and if anyone can win some personal success, fabulous and more power to everyone that can. They could lose with their pay just as easily. Would the community raise issue with a huge price drop, so we could pay more for their work?
Further, the only FUD I can associate to these discussions is, if our leaders become mega rich and desert us. Even then what a success story to use as incentive for better and better devs and leaders.
Just glad to see all the active discussions and hope we all are keeping our eye on the prize. Secret FTW!