[Proposal] Continuance Funding for API Team for Secret Saturn

Secret Governance
1

Hey everyone,

I got some news to share with you regarding the API team.

As outlined here (The API Proposal IV Revision B), we have reduced the amount of total nodes to the following three teams:

9 x thenodefather (secretnodes.com, Delta Flyer)
9 x Secret Saturn
9 x Quiet Monkey Mind

The current funds right now are handled by Delta Flyer (secretnodes.com). He holds the wallet (here: Mintscan ) that has the funds for the API proposal and does the payouts according to my discretion. This arrangement was done in the past because he was one of API team leads, which he fully gave over to me at Oct 30th.

As he does not want to make business with me anymore (which is unfortunate), he will not pay me my portion of the payout. Now we have two possibilities on how we can continue the API proposal:

First would be:

  1. I leave the API team and give the lead over to Taariq as a neutral person, since thenodefather currently controls:

    • The domain
    • The budget that he was supposed to handle at my discretion
    • The LB
    • The reporting tooling
    • The Auto heal
    • The caching software.

Please keep in mind that he willing fully gave over the API team lead to me about 3 weeks ago.

  1. Or I would apply for extra funding, which just covers my portion of the api team until we reach the next term in March (corrected):

  • This would amount to 9 nodes x 150 $ per node x 4 months = 5400 $ for this remaining period.

  • Any extra, left over funds from my side will be of course be paid back to the community pool.

  • This funding of 5400 $ would also include my self developed open source code for the auto heal solution on nginx, as well as the status reporting and goaccess reporting (to adhere to the open source funding policy). I’m sure that the developed versions of thenodefather might be more sophisticated, but a simple auto solution for nginx is something that I think more teams can use for the future.

  • An alternative domain is also available in case secret.express is lost due to some complications.

I think the way to go here is to do a community spend proposal, which gauges how the chain and community feels about this. If the proposal is rejected, we can safely assume that the community thinks that I personally should definitely not continue the api proposal. In that case, I give over the lead to the api team to Quiet Monkey Mind and I’ll safely wind down my api endpoints to a minimum until the end of the year.

Also, we have to discuss on how the community feels about me being a member of the Secret Network Foundation now. There is a potential COI in general as with everything that I do now, but as it goes for the API proposal, I don’t see any concrete COI here.

Either way, some decision has to be made as to what’s happening in the future.

I’m happy with both as long as we vote on it, but the community has to decide now on what is going to happen.

Best,

Alex | Secret Saturn | SNF

2

Sad to see the same individual holding community funded IP hostage again.

I think we need to go with option 2 for now and for the future create tools that others can pick up, and transfer policies that don’t allow individuals to withhold community IP / funds / assets from the community.

Fingers crossed this latest matter is resolved amicably and in the best interest of the network as a whole.

3

The approved terms are here, notably not everyone listed is even currently receiving payments. And Alex did not request the listed parties who provided nodes in the past be paid any amount. This includes both consensus one and trivium, who, as I understand it, he conveniently, had no qualms about not paying for time they provided nodes. In regards to that specific matter I very clearly stated to him I didn’t want to make a decision on the topic personally. Potential unpaid liabilities related to Alex’s decisions not to have these parties paid exceeds $3000, but may be lower for various reasons, though it is unlikely to be zero for any justifiable reason.

And despite what Alex is claiming, there is no risk to secret express not operating as usual, going forward into January / February. No threats have been made to turn it off. It is entirely up to him if he wishes to renew his rental agreements end of month, it is not a cost that he is forced to incur, and he has received compensation for November. Continuity of API is expected.

Note : none of the things Alex listed fall into the category of “Community IP”.

Furthermore, despite what Alex claims, he is not the proposer of Proposal 259. At no point did I specifically “fully give” anything over, if that had been the case then the current off-chain disagreement couldn’t possibly result in the situation we are in as he would have the funds.

4

I would just like to state that Trivium has already been paid in full for services provided and is not owed anything from the API Prop. Although we were given no advance notice before being removed, Alex offered to compensate us for the costs of any renewed servers. This probably wasn’t even necessary as the prop was for 3 months and at the time of removal we had already been paid for the nodes provided during those 3 months. Luckily we were not required to give notice to our server provider so no additional expenses were incurred, I just hadn’t communicated this to Alex.

2 Likes
5

Thanks for clarifying outside of your communications internally.

image
image1076Ă—208 33.4 KB

John indicated he wasn’t so fortunate, but its good to hear you were not stiffed. I’ll get it sorted with him.

6

This is absolutely not true.

Even John form concensus.one personally confirmed this in the Governance chat as well, as well as in private.

Nothing else that I can say except that this behavior of trying to follow suit for something that is not even true is absolutely unacceptable.

7

The following is provably true.

Alex agreed to be responsible for deciding who gets paid, and didn’t follow up on this promise more than 1 time with trivium, or more than 2 times with consensus one until a public dispute occurred.

Nothing else that I can say except that this behavior of trying to follow suit for something that is not even true is absolutely unacceptable.

8

Just want to mention that, without touching any of the other problems and topics surrounding this proposal, that Lavender.Five Nodes will likely not be voting in favor of any community spend proposal for a community api for now.

9

I highly encourage everyone to vote on this proposal however people want to vote, but believe people should also be aware of the following information that Alex is omitting for unknown reasons.

  1. Proposal 288 is for the launch of an API entirely separate from secret.express or the API team.
  2. Secret.Express has been running very smoothly with 18 nodes provided by the remaining members of the API team, and does not need more nodes based on the current network utilization.
  3. The API reporting, endpoints, and other information related to what Alex is proposing is not specified in the proposal text or this thread or anywhere else it’s only referenced high level in this thread and there are no real details.

While proposal 288 has no affiliation or impact on the API team, I have no issue with the network deciding to fund 2 APIs if the network decides to do so.

10

As to:

  1. No.
  2. Read the proposal carefully.

Proposal 288 represents the legitimate continuation of the original API Proposal. You undermined the original proposal by holding funds hostage. This is truly shameful.

11
  1. Isn’t your decision. It’s the proposer of 259s decision.
  2. The on chain proposal for 288 does not include any information about what endpoint is used, it doesn’t specify what other deliverables there are.

Again, you were fired from API team and you were paid based on the terms outlined in proposal 259 which you know was funding for 3 month periods as Trivium pointed out above.

12

  1. No, you rugged it. Prop 259 was jointly done and just uploaded by you on chain, as we deposited a joint amount of 500 SCRT into it each.

  2. Again: Read the proposal carefully.

13

Making a deposit on a proposal doesn’t have any bearing on what I said.

  1. You are not the proposer.
  2. You never controlled funds.
  3. I did have the power to fire you, and did so.
  4. I did read your proposal.

You can assert whatever you want as much as you want… but clearly you are not the proposer of 259. You were merely handing comms, and dev support which were both uncompensated roles. Keep the argument going as long as you want, but I’m well within my rights and I don’t care if people want to fund a 2nd API I just think you should specify the deliverables better.

1 Like
14

Thank you for approving the proposal. :slight_smile:

I wanted to update you that the SCRT has been successfully converted into USDC. Due to a favorable increase in the market price during the proposal period, it only required the conversion of 13,379 SCRT to obtain the needed 5,400 USDC. The surplus SCRT, amounting to 2,371 SCRT, has been returned to the community pool via these transactions: Mintscan and Mintscan

15

I respect you and am grateful for your consistent presence within the SCRT community

1 Like
16

right back at you oljo 🫶🏼