concerns list

[owocki]

starting this thread so we can just list ppls concerns

[owocki]

Main concerns re: inflation funding:

(1) Cutting into already small staking rewards. I might be a little out of date here but last info i saw put rewards at ~3-4%. By taking a cut of those, you're decreasing the incentive for people to actually secure the network. If your alternative is a 6% return, that looks even more attractive.

(2) Deciding allocation of funds. We'd need much more robust and transparent processes

[owocki]

more listed on this thread https://twitter.com/owocki/status/1103720409113911296

[tvanepps]

Main concerns re: inflation funding:

(1) Cutting into already small staking rewards. I might be a little out of date here but last info i saw put rewards at ~3-4%. By taking a cut of those, you're decreasing the incentive for people to actually secure the network. If your alternative is a 6% return, that looks even more attractive.

(2) Deciding allocation of funds. We'd need much more robust and transparent processes

staking rewards are dynamic, no? they operate on a sliding scale depending on # of validators until market incentives (and competition with other staking / lending services) are accomplished

[owocki]

@lrettig: One thought I wanted to share. I’ve been having discrete conversations about this with a few people here and something that came up is the following. This basically amounts to a tax, and the thing about taxes is that for people to support them, they need to understand them - why they’re necessary, how the money is being administered/governed, and most importantly how the money is being used.

[owocki]

https://twitter.com/paralleldown/status/1103771049693507584

[owocki]

1. Potential for permanent incumbents

2. Affects the value of all tokens, requires 100% agreement 2a. If it comes out of mining fees it reduces network security

3. There's opt-in ways to do this

4. It's going to cause a contentious hard fork and a split network

https://twitter.com/pyskell/status/1103804248674963456

[owocki]

"microdonations could do this better without L0 funding" https://twitter.com/pyskell/status/1103831067222515713

[owocki]

some good thoughts by dan finaly => https://twitter.com/gregthegreek/status/1103808080490520578

[owocki]

"Kevin has a conflict of interest because he works on Gitcoin who's mission is to Grow Open Source"

[lrettig]

"Kevin has a conflict of interest because he works on Gitcoin who's mission is to Grow Open Source"

This came up in my conversations. We should have an honest conversation about this. Is this a conflict of interest, or is it skin in the game? Is it an asset or a liability? Is Gitcoin a for-profit enterprise? Etc.

[lrettig]

(1) Cutting into already small staking rewards.

I think they're orthogonal and we should actively seek not to conflate the two. Securing the network is critical and should not be sacrificed for dev funding.

[lrettig]

My biggest concerns at present are:

• Market messaging and communications, and how we pitch this to different segments of the community/stakeholder groups. Building community support, in general. Making it beyond clear that this is not a "money grab" and that it's rather essential for the ecosystem, existential for Ethereum's survival and success, and is actually intended to reward people who are working hard and incentivize them not to go launch another shitcoin ICO. That it increases value for everyone. Etc.
• Making the case convincingly that EF is not enough, by itself, and that it's not the right steward of these funds.
• What I mentioned here: making sure we've made a rock solid case for this, and for how the funds will be administered and dispersed, to which projects, how, and why. I think this is the hardest, most important part, and that if we get this right, other things will fall into place.
• Slow Ethereum governance process in general (not specific to this issue).
• Governance of the funds, of course. Making corruption impossible.

[owocki]

Is it an asset or a liability?

I've spent years thinking about Gitcoin's mission and have thought endlessly about open source sustainability, and have networked Gitcoin into the http://sustainoss.org community. In that sense its an asset.

Donno how it's a liability. Maybe some of the specific questions below will illuminate 👇

Is this a conflict of interest, or is it skin in the game?

A conflict of interest is when I have power/responsibility over the outcome, but I have stake in the outcome the sways me to use my power in an irresponsible way.

I don't believe that I have any undue power over the ecosystem (I'm not at the EF, I'm not a release manager, I'm not writing code for a client), so I don't see any possible way I could have a conflict of interest.

Feel free to disagree with me here.

Is Gitcoin a for-profit enterprise? Etc.

Right now we're wholly owned by Consensys, but it is likely that one day we will have a For Profit arm, a Non Profit arm, etc... just like the Linux Foundation does. I am being coached by some of their senior leadership on how to set this up within the spirit/rules of the law (in the US at least).

I believe that this only becomes an issue if I were positioning Gitcoin as an channel to distribute funding to the ecosystem. I do not believe that we are at this point of the conversation yet, but if and when we get there, the case will be made to others based upon our fitness to do so (the community of devs we've built, our track record, etc) to other stewards of the (tentative name) Ethereum Ecosystem Fund. The specifics of the EEF design are still on the table, but I believe one important design criteria is that no individual (or cartel of individuals) can unduly sway the funding decisions in a way that's not inline with the EEF's charter.

Again, it's worth stating here that Gitcoin's success is driven by Gitcoin's mission, not the other way around. I don't know exactly how to measure this commitment, and I can't disclose the exact number, but we've sunk a ton of time/money into pursuing a better ecosystem for Open Source Maintainers thus far. To me, spent resources are a good indication of investment in outcome, so I like to think of those sunk costs as table stakes to be taken seriously in this design discussion.

Again, feel free to disagree with me here. Publicly or privately.

[pet3r-pan]

• Market messaging and communications, and how we pitch this to different segments of the community/stakeholder groups. Building community support, in general. Making it beyond clear that this is not a "money grab" and that it's rather essential for the ecosystem, existential for Ethereum's survival and success, and is actually intended to reward people who are working hard and incentivize them not to go launch another shitcoin ICO. That it increases value for everyone. Etc.

While a rather intangible outcome that is mostly measured by when you step one someone's toes, it can be worked towards gradually. To build trust, is to not only be transparent but to show that we have done the appropriate homework (data / evidence backed decision making) when designing protocols and making critical decisions. This also means not just being responsive and out in the open but also proactively engaging with aspects of the community.

A strategy can be put into play here, but trust is something that will take time and can't be rushed.