We need to raise in house developers to eventually take over maintenance. As a dev I can tell you 4 years on any 1 project is essentially a lifetime to your career. Every day technology moves and you become stale as you sit still keeping your resume high & tight in the corporate world.
At 110k/year/dev this is enough funding for roughly 4 if they are corporate backed with overhead, maybe 8 if they are all freelance developers. Point being as technology shifts so will developer interests and when personnel rolls over what then? They are not contracted to keep the platform alive in perpetuity.
It would be good of them to maybe help train some community developers on the design & functionality of the program once its in maintenance so community coders can pick up the slack over time. At some point I imagine the dev team will want to move onto greener pastures.
Great to be a part of this process and see a well thought out compromise come to vote. I approve.
However I do have a few remaining questions: Do we have any guidelines laid out for amending the relationship at a future date if there is significant over/under performance relative to the projected numbers?
Will there be any way for frogs to track progress other than waiting for announcements? If not, how frequently/actively does the dev team intend to provide updates?
What kind of in-house developer are you looking for that would build something like this for 110k/year when Lido has raised a ton of money? What agency can you contract to build out a liquid staking protocol for $1mm when there are barely any experienced crypto devs out there, much less crypto dev agencies?
I see what youâre saying but we have to be realistic here. Thereâs not a lot of people that can build this thing, which is why Iâve advocated to keep rev-share attractive for the devs so that they have an incentive to maintain (and improve) the protocol over the coming years.
Yes: Avalanche first, being the much larger (and thus more profitable to Wonderland) chain, followed by Fantom (which, being EVM, we hope to re-use much of our Avalanche work on).
We donât have a timeline for Fantom, but weâd expect it to take less time than Avalanche for this reason (i.e. maximum a few months).
Great question. We plan to be active both here on the forums and Discord, and weâll post regular updates on progress (as well as cute teasers for added Twitter hype )
Whatâs the communityâs preference for updates?
Wouldnât the in house devs become stale then? Probably more stale than these devs considering they are free to work on other projects, but incentivized to stay on the project and keep it running and making it better. $110k isnât enough for solidity devs. Sifu already mentioned this in discord. âThere are no good solidity developers charging $175k/year. Unfortunately.â
But we could probably have them draft documentation to, at minimum, maintain the platform in case thereâs rollover in their team.
Remember we are essentially a VC fund that invest in projects. Not trying to become a dev DAO.
Consider @amuri idea on a call for proposals? I see that as major set back, and the suggested deadline isnât feasible either, how can we assume there are other teams prepared to delve in such project. This is a matter of trust in a anon environment, i know, but the proposer has laid out many points that sets them ahead of it ( ava labs contacts, two milestones already achieved, ongoing protocol development ).
I totally get the defensive stance, even if there will be eventually competitors the platform launched first will be comfortable for the majority of users bc they are already users, ppl likes comfy.
I think discord announcements since thereâs high activity there, but paired with twitter, we need more âtwitter footprintâ, this is a topic discussed recently over discord.
Agreed. I donât think this would work as smoothly in DeFi.
Discord Announcements is best. Any other way, people may not see it. Setting up a Twitter account may be something worth considering as well. Not only would this work to update on development, but also as marketing.
The only thing couldnât understand is why we need our own block chain. Anyways I am giving the go ahead, as it seems there is much more commitment for the success of the product
After initial review of the DAO discussion, the team was able to amend their initial proposal which resulted in a positive community sentiment of 95% in favor of funding this project, the RFC is now locked and transferred to the last stage of the governance process.
)