RE: SPS DAO to Support SPS Validators Proposal
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
I think the main consideration here should be whether the amount we pay is reasonable given the expected delivery timeline. I agree that $350k for a 1-year delivery timeline might be a bit expensive, but frankly I would be in favor of paying that much if the delivery was closer to 4-6 months for example. We need to regain momentum, and completing the validators can help, which makes it worth the investment in my opinion.
Here's another way to think about it: the spend we're looking at here is peanuts compared to the EXPECTED value we have for this game/ecosystem/token. Of course we want to be thoughtful about our spending, but if we're overly timid then we potentially run the risk of not giving ourselves the chances we need to succeed.
100% in agreement there, Brave. Question is mostly 'what we need and how to get it done'. Most people are unsure how much work is done. Estimate varies from 80% finished to nothing at all depending on who you ask. Just needed some clarity here, and DJ is getting back with the info.
The issue is that it's hard to tell what % done it is and what more needs to be done at this point. That's part of the job of the devs we get to do this. The project has been worked on by a number of different people on and off over the years, most of whom aren't with the company anymore.
What I want to do is to get two top notch developers to own this project. That includes reviewing everything we have, planning out what needs to be done, giving realistic timelines for completing it, and then getting it done.
Ultimately, if the DAO decides to help out here then the token holders will be trusting me to use the funds wisely to get this done in as high-quality and efficient a way as possible. We will make sure to be very transparent throughout the entire process, and share with the community the list of tasks that need to be done and their progress on a regular basis.
I'd be happy to discuss this in more detail on a DAOn hall or other avenue as well as I think this is a very important topic.
So the way I read is that there is a lack of continuity on this project.
If I take my project management experience for 'non-software' related project, I'd estimate that it will probably take more time that you estimate right now; especially considering new developers in the project.
That brings us to the question of money. DAO is running out of stables. I am unsure where the money is going to come from.
The DAO has over $2M of non-SL funds available. Some ETH can be sold if needed. I'm not saying that to mean that you should approve this proposal, I'm just pointing out that should it be approved, the DAO has more than enough available for it.
As for the timeline, in my experience it all depends on the lead developer. There are some developers who make projects go on and on forever and there are some who know how to get things done and often surprise you by how quickly they do things. I have the latter sort of developer already picked out to lead this project and I plan to try to get it done with or without the help of the DAO (this proposal wasn't even my idea).
I agree and welcome your plan that you describe on the second paragraph. It makes sense.
ETH is a bluechip. I hope we can hold on to it at least for the exchange listing, if that ever materializes. For a 'salary paying' type of funding if we have to sell our bluechip holding that will be unfortunate.
That's great. Essentially I think we want:
(1) Current status of the work (to give more transparency on how far along we are).
(2) A clear budget (from Matt, given he knows best on the completion rate) needed to complete the work within 6 months.
(3) A review of the importance of Validators (I think it's important to itemize this again to get the Community's support).
Brave: please read the conversation between Matt and myself; he says he can get it done this year. In that case I see no need to fund this.
There have been other conversations about more important funding allocations
Ah, I had missed that, thanks for pointing it out Azircon. Ok, makes sense.