From 6e3c35d4666987b01cd3efb04654063f4fc48218 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lewildbeast Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:29:01 +1000 Subject: [PATCH 01/20] create initial doc --- Proposal | 84 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 84 insertions(+) create mode 100644 Proposal diff --git a/Proposal b/Proposal new file mode 100644 index 0000000..580648d --- /dev/null +++ b/Proposal @@ -0,0 +1,84 @@ +Last updated 23/aug + +** Introduction + +BIPs are design documents for introducing new features into Bitcoin (similar "improvement proposal" systems exist for other Blockchain projects). For example, BIP 32 by Pieter Wuille introduced HD wallets into the Bitcoin ecosystem. This greatly simplified private key management and allowed for deterministic wallets to be interchanged between different clients or backed up through the use of seed words. Although not specifically designed for Decred, BIPs like this example have been successfully integrated into Decred helping advance the Decred project. Since the inception of Decred @davecgh estimates 4 BIPs have been incorporated. + +The individuals or groups capable of developing BIPs represent a small pool of developers familiar with Blockchain fundamentals who are interested in improving Bitcoin. It would be to our benefit that we attract such talent. I propose using a small portion of the treasury funds as a reward for BIP or other "IP" authors if their work has contributed to the advancement of the Decred project. I think 1000 DCR per BIP [actual amount to be decided upon later via feedback] represents a reasonable acknowledgement of their work. The reward will only be given out once in the event an author has contributed more than 1 BIP. + +I expect the response will lie on a continuum from "Positive" to "Indifferent". I would expect most would feel acknowledged and validated in some way. I would expect most of them to look into the source of the reward which may form the initial point of contact into Decred. Of course, not everybody that looks at Decred will be attracted to it, but I expect programmers with an understanding of blockchain fundamentals will appreciate the unique features offered by our Blockchain project and hopefully this will incentivize them to contribute. + +Whilst most Politea proposals are priced in USD and then converted to DCR, I believe this undermines the value of giving the reward in DCR. This proposal specifically requests the reward be paid out as DCR only as doing so would can incentivize the recipient to work towards increasing the value of DCR held. Having the rewards priced in DCR only also illustrate the global nature of this project and is also symbolic of our move away from fiat. + +The secondary aims of this proposal are to generate positive media buzz for Decred as well as to highlight our treasury and governance system. By being able to acknowledge good ideas from everywhere in the crypto space and showing how they were incorporated into Decred, we can demonstrate maturity of thought and the collective capacity to make decisions that can move the project forward. In doing this, we will ultimately bring more users and developers into our community and strengthen it. + +Prior to recipients being announced: podcasters, bloggers, twitter, facebook and other social media personalities should be tapped to give them lead time to prepare. I feel it is vital to tap into media networks covering other projects (ideally projects the (B)IP authors are involved in) as a way to break down crypto tribalism and build relationships between crypto communities. + +** Financial +The only funds requested are those that go to the rewards (1000 DCR per reward) +The author of this proposal does not request payment. + + +** Execution + +Reward recipients will necessarily have to be put forward by our coding contractors since no other group would have the required knowledge. Reward recipients and their corresponding (B)IPs could be verified by everybody else in during the 'In Discussion' phase of the Politea process. The recipients will all be mentioned by name along with their contribution in during the 'Voting" phase of the Politea process. + +Outreach to (B)IP authors should be done by individuals well known, ideally both within the Decred community and also on social media. Direct contact should be sought with the authors first followed by contact over social media channels. Permission for a short interview (30 minutes) would be sought and should focus on the reason the (B)IP was created. + +Since we would know who the reward recipients will be in advance of the recipients themselves, we should take the opportunity to prepare some media pieces for release. The topics to focus on should include: + +- Reason the (B)IP was created, the problem that it identifies and addresses +- Any barriers faced in putting the idea forward, any push back from the intended community +- Any limitations of the original infrastructure (things that our DCPs address) that would have resulted in more seamless integration + +Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was obtained to promote our self sovereign treasury and to distinguish it from how other cryptocurrency projects are funded. + +** Issues + +-Obtaining expression of interest for social media personnel, interviewers, bloggers, etc. +--> Will our writers/media team be willing to do the interviews/write-ups for no cost? Having to factor in their cost will complicate this proposal. +----> Perhaps they could be compensated by donations (risky as there may be no donors...) +----> Could be used as proof of 'work' for aspiring contractors... + +- Treatment of (B)IPs that were 'inherited' before Decred started +--> Will need to get numbers and (B)IPs that fall into category. Current thought is that we need to define a start point or we may have too many reward recipients. +--> Treatment of ideas that clearly originated from other projects which did not necessarily originate as (B)IPs... e.g. CSPP (credit: jet_user) + +- Recipients may reject our reward or decline being interviewed. +--> We could still spin this in a good light e.g: still publicly acknowledge that a (B)IP was incorporated into Decred because we agree it is a good proposal, how it betters Decred. +--> We can highlight how Decred seeks to incorporate sound ideas which may originate from other projects + +- What form the reward should take? +--> A tacky trophy? Giant paper wallet? Honorary contractor giant 'cheque'? +--> Something more technical (to illustrate something decred specific would be ideal)... + +- If this is successful, should it continue or be a one off affair? + +- COULD THE MEDIA PUBLICITY BACKFIRE? + + + + +--------------------------------------- +@richard red comments: +Hey, no problem +it's missing some detail on how it would work in practice. who selects the recipients? how does a recipient accept or reject this reward? how do we know the DCR is really being paid to the right person? +would the BIP authors have to come and claim it or does someone seek them out? + +@checkmatey +The idea is interesting but im really not sure about it. What BIPs or devs would you be considering? +To be honest, I would rather put up bounties for those interested to do work for the project +Remember, DCR was built from its own Bitcoin implementation. The decred devs already gifted that tech for free +LND wouldnt exist without it +And that code was shunned and cursed by the bitcoin.devs +Despite being quality code and very useful. +I dont believe this is a great way to earn much more than 1000DCR worth of sell pressure. + +@davecgh +That really largely depends if you want to consider early BIPs well before Decred ever started that were inherited. +I would say those probably really don't matter since Decred didn't exist. Since then though, I think 4 + +@jet_user +In a way Decred is already taking advantage of the thoughtwork done for some BIPs. Talking about client-side filters of course (BIP 157 and 158). A related thing is CSPP, which iirc does not have a BIP. What both of these pieces of work have in common is that they received a serious engineering effort to implement in Decred. I think people who have spent significant effort developing these ideas would be happy to know they came to reality in Decred, even though they were originally intended for another system. + +Airdropping DCR on these talented people is a very interesting idea in line with our builder culture. I cannot lead organizing this, but if someone does I'd throw a few DCR in the pool! From 4123646a85be59c0692e028a4824570622f6457d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lewildbeast Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 13:30:03 +1000 Subject: [PATCH 02/20] update --- Proposal | 4 ---- 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/Proposal b/Proposal index 580648d..1652921 100644 --- a/Proposal +++ b/Proposal @@ -1,7 +1,3 @@ -Last updated 23/aug - -** Introduction - BIPs are design documents for introducing new features into Bitcoin (similar "improvement proposal" systems exist for other Blockchain projects). For example, BIP 32 by Pieter Wuille introduced HD wallets into the Bitcoin ecosystem. This greatly simplified private key management and allowed for deterministic wallets to be interchanged between different clients or backed up through the use of seed words. Although not specifically designed for Decred, BIPs like this example have been successfully integrated into Decred helping advance the Decred project. Since the inception of Decred @davecgh estimates 4 BIPs have been incorporated. The individuals or groups capable of developing BIPs represent a small pool of developers familiar with Blockchain fundamentals who are interested in improving Bitcoin. It would be to our benefit that we attract such talent. I propose using a small portion of the treasury funds as a reward for BIP or other "IP" authors if their work has contributed to the advancement of the Decred project. I think 1000 DCR per BIP [actual amount to be decided upon later via feedback] represents a reasonable acknowledgement of their work. The reward will only be given out once in the event an author has contributed more than 1 BIP. From ec46288c75743d640136c452cd716460843f34ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lewildbeast Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:13:52 +1000 Subject: [PATCH 03/20] update --- Proposal | 35 +++++++++++++++++++---------------- 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/Proposal b/Proposal index 1652921..01024e2 100644 --- a/Proposal +++ b/Proposal @@ -1,44 +1,46 @@ BIPs are design documents for introducing new features into Bitcoin (similar "improvement proposal" systems exist for other Blockchain projects). For example, BIP 32 by Pieter Wuille introduced HD wallets into the Bitcoin ecosystem. This greatly simplified private key management and allowed for deterministic wallets to be interchanged between different clients or backed up through the use of seed words. Although not specifically designed for Decred, BIPs like this example have been successfully integrated into Decred helping advance the Decred project. Since the inception of Decred @davecgh estimates 4 BIPs have been incorporated. -The individuals or groups capable of developing BIPs represent a small pool of developers familiar with Blockchain fundamentals who are interested in improving Bitcoin. It would be to our benefit that we attract such talent. I propose using a small portion of the treasury funds as a reward for BIP or other "IP" authors if their work has contributed to the advancement of the Decred project. I think 1000 DCR per BIP [actual amount to be decided upon later via feedback] represents a reasonable acknowledgement of their work. The reward will only be given out once in the event an author has contributed more than 1 BIP. +The individuals or groups capable of developing (B)IPs represent a small pool of developers familiar with Blockchain fundamentals who are interested in improving Bitcoin or their respective project. It would be to our benefit that we attract such talent. I propose using a small portion of the treasury funds as an award for (B)IP authors if their work has contributed to the advancement of the Decred project. I think 1000 DCR per BIP [actual amount to be decided upon later: will depend on number of reward candidates and other possible expenses] represents a reasonable acknowledgement of their contribution. The reward will only be given out once in the event an author(s) has contributed more than 1 BIP. -I expect the response will lie on a continuum from "Positive" to "Indifferent". I would expect most would feel acknowledged and validated in some way. I would expect most of them to look into the source of the reward which may form the initial point of contact into Decred. Of course, not everybody that looks at Decred will be attracted to it, but I expect programmers with an understanding of blockchain fundamentals will appreciate the unique features offered by our Blockchain project and hopefully this will incentivize them to contribute. +I expect the response will lie on a continuum from "Positive" to "Indifferent" with most feeling acknowledged and validated in some way. I would expect most of them to look into the source of the reward which may form the initial point of contact into Decred. Of course, not everybody that looks at Decred will be attracted to it and it is entirely possible that they may move on to sell their reward. That said I believe programmers with an understanding of blockchain fundamentals will appreciate the unique features offered by our Blockchain project and hopefully this will incentivize them to contribute to our code base. Whilst most Politea proposals are priced in USD and then converted to DCR, I believe this undermines the value of giving the reward in DCR. This proposal specifically requests the reward be paid out as DCR only as doing so would can incentivize the recipient to work towards increasing the value of DCR held. Having the rewards priced in DCR only also illustrate the global nature of this project and is also symbolic of our move away from fiat. -The secondary aims of this proposal are to generate positive media buzz for Decred as well as to highlight our treasury and governance system. By being able to acknowledge good ideas from everywhere in the crypto space and showing how they were incorporated into Decred, we can demonstrate maturity of thought and the collective capacity to make decisions that can move the project forward. In doing this, we will ultimately bring more users and developers into our community and strengthen it. +The secondary aims of this proposal are to highlight our treasury and governance system as well as generate positive attention from outside our community. By shoing our capacity to acknowledge good ideas from everywhere in the crypto space and showing how they were incorporated into Decred, we can demonstrate maturity of thought and our collective capacity in making decisions that can move the project forward. In doing this, we will ultimately bring more users and developers into our community and strengthen it. + +In order to capitalize on this we will need to give our media team lead time to prepare. It would be vital to tap into media networks covering other projects so that news about Decred can break outside the bounds of /r/decred and #decred --the way to break down crypto tribalism and build relationships between our community and the others. -Prior to recipients being announced: podcasters, bloggers, twitter, facebook and other social media personalities should be tapped to give them lead time to prepare. I feel it is vital to tap into media networks covering other projects (ideally projects the (B)IP authors are involved in) as a way to break down crypto tribalism and build relationships between crypto communities. ** Financial -The only funds requested are those that go to the rewards (1000 DCR per reward) -The author of this proposal does not request payment. +The only funds requested are those that go to the rewards. +// Assuming 6 awards, that would be 6000 DCR +The author of this proposal does not request payment. +I wish the media team do not request payment as well as I feel it undermines/complicates the process +// This may be wishful thinking on my part so will budget in here +// [to complete later] +// --> Perhaps they could be compensated by donations (risky as there may be no donors...) +// --> Could be used as proof of 'work' for aspiring contractors... (maybe nobody will take the bite) ** Execution +Award recipients will be nominated by existing coding contractors since no other group would have the required knowledge. Award recipients and their corresponding (B)IPs could be verified by everybody else in during the 'In Discussion' phase of the Politea process. The recipients will all be mentioned by name along with their contribution in during the 'Voting" phase of the Politea process. -Reward recipients will necessarily have to be put forward by our coding contractors since no other group would have the required knowledge. Reward recipients and their corresponding (B)IPs could be verified by everybody else in during the 'In Discussion' phase of the Politea process. The recipients will all be mentioned by name along with their contribution in during the 'Voting" phase of the Politea process. - -Outreach to (B)IP authors should be done by individuals well known, ideally both within the Decred community and also on social media. Direct contact should be sought with the authors first followed by contact over social media channels. Permission for a short interview (30 minutes) would be sought and should focus on the reason the (B)IP was created. +Outreach to (B)IP authors should be done by individuals well known, ideally both within the Decred community and also on social media. Direct contact should be sought with the authors first followed by contact over social media channels. Permission for a short video interview (30 minutes) would be sought and should focus on the reason the (B)IP was created. Since we would know who the reward recipients will be in advance of the recipients themselves, we should take the opportunity to prepare some media pieces for release. The topics to focus on should include: - - Reason the (B)IP was created, the problem that it identifies and addresses - Any barriers faced in putting the idea forward, any push back from the intended community - Any limitations of the original infrastructure (things that our DCPs address) that would have resulted in more seamless integration Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was obtained to promote our self sovereign treasury and to distinguish it from how other cryptocurrency projects are funded. +// Obtaining expression of interest for social media personnel, interviewers, bloggers, etc. +// If they do this for a fee we might be perceived as just doing this as a PR stunt which may alienate the award winners... ** Issues --Obtaining expression of interest for social media personnel, interviewers, bloggers, etc. ---> Will our writers/media team be willing to do the interviews/write-ups for no cost? Having to factor in their cost will complicate this proposal. -----> Perhaps they could be compensated by donations (risky as there may be no donors...) -----> Could be used as proof of 'work' for aspiring contractors... - - Treatment of (B)IPs that were 'inherited' before Decred started --> Will need to get numbers and (B)IPs that fall into category. Current thought is that we need to define a start point or we may have too many reward recipients. ---> Treatment of ideas that clearly originated from other projects which did not necessarily originate as (B)IPs... e.g. CSPP (credit: jet_user) +--> How to deal with ideas that clearly originated from other projects which did not necessarily originate as (B)IPs... e.g. CSPP (credit: jet_user) - Recipients may reject our reward or decline being interviewed. --> We could still spin this in a good light e.g: still publicly acknowledge that a (B)IP was incorporated into Decred because we agree it is a good proposal, how it betters Decred. @@ -47,6 +49,7 @@ Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was o - What form the reward should take? --> A tacky trophy? Giant paper wallet? Honorary contractor giant 'cheque'? --> Something more technical (to illustrate something decred specific would be ideal)... +----> Artwork or something that could be anchored into DCRTime (allowing us to show off DCRTime...) - If this is successful, should it continue or be a one off affair? From 2d608d76a00d781820f1e59c0e6538c67707ba7c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lewildbeast Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:37:52 +1000 Subject: [PATCH 04/20] update --- Proposal | 22 ++++++++++++++++------ 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) diff --git a/Proposal b/Proposal index 01024e2..374a537 100644 --- a/Proposal +++ b/Proposal @@ -1,3 +1,7 @@ +****Feel free to share within Decred community**** + +** Introduction + BIPs are design documents for introducing new features into Bitcoin (similar "improvement proposal" systems exist for other Blockchain projects). For example, BIP 32 by Pieter Wuille introduced HD wallets into the Bitcoin ecosystem. This greatly simplified private key management and allowed for deterministic wallets to be interchanged between different clients or backed up through the use of seed words. Although not specifically designed for Decred, BIPs like this example have been successfully integrated into Decred helping advance the Decred project. Since the inception of Decred @davecgh estimates 4 BIPs have been incorporated. The individuals or groups capable of developing (B)IPs represent a small pool of developers familiar with Blockchain fundamentals who are interested in improving Bitcoin or their respective project. It would be to our benefit that we attract such talent. I propose using a small portion of the treasury funds as an award for (B)IP authors if their work has contributed to the advancement of the Decred project. I think 1000 DCR per BIP [actual amount to be decided upon later: will depend on number of reward candidates and other possible expenses] represents a reasonable acknowledgement of their contribution. The reward will only be given out once in the event an author(s) has contributed more than 1 BIP. @@ -11,26 +15,31 @@ The secondary aims of this proposal are to highlight our treasury and governance In order to capitalize on this we will need to give our media team lead time to prepare. It would be vital to tap into media networks covering other projects so that news about Decred can break outside the bounds of /r/decred and #decred --the way to break down crypto tribalism and build relationships between our community and the others. -** Financial +** Financial Considerations The only funds requested are those that go to the rewards. -// Assuming 6 awards, that would be 6000 DCR +// Assuming 3-6 awards, that would be 3000-6000 DCR The author of this proposal does not request payment. -I wish the media team do not request payment as well as I feel it undermines/complicates the process +I hope the media team does not request payment as well as I feel it undermines/complicates the process or worse, make us come off looking like we are trying to profiteer from the award. // This may be wishful thinking on my part so will budget in here -// [to complete later] -// --> Perhaps they could be compensated by donations (risky as there may be no donors...) +// [budget to complete later] +// --> Perhaps they could be compensated by community donations (risky as there may be no donors...) +// ---> What about Ark Invest? (Will this look bad? Worse, BACKFIRE?) // --> Could be used as proof of 'work' for aspiring contractors... (maybe nobody will take the bite) ** Execution -Award recipients will be nominated by existing coding contractors since no other group would have the required knowledge. Award recipients and their corresponding (B)IPs could be verified by everybody else in during the 'In Discussion' phase of the Politea process. The recipients will all be mentioned by name along with their contribution in during the 'Voting" phase of the Politea process. +Award recipients will be nominated by existing coding contractors since no other group would have the required knowledge of which improvement protocols or ideas were used. Award recipients and their corresponding (B)IPs could be verified by everybody else in during the 'In Discussion' phase of the Politea process. The recipients will all be mentioned by name along with their contribution in during the 'Voting" phase of the Politea process. +// Our contractors only need to identify the idea and author(s) involved so this should not take long. +// Could just post the question on Matrix (I believe all contractors use Matrix...) Outreach to (B)IP authors should be done by individuals well known, ideally both within the Decred community and also on social media. Direct contact should be sought with the authors first followed by contact over social media channels. Permission for a short video interview (30 minutes) would be sought and should focus on the reason the (B)IP was created. +// checkmate, richard red, exitus, permabull nino, jz Since we would know who the reward recipients will be in advance of the recipients themselves, we should take the opportunity to prepare some media pieces for release. The topics to focus on should include: - Reason the (B)IP was created, the problem that it identifies and addresses - Any barriers faced in putting the idea forward, any push back from the intended community - Any limitations of the original infrastructure (things that our DCPs address) that would have resulted in more seamless integration +// who would be willing to write? Do we need to vet the documents? I would be happy to but I also realize to the community I am a reasonably unknown entity (by choice). Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was obtained to promote our self sovereign treasury and to distinguish it from how other cryptocurrency projects are funded. // Obtaining expression of interest for social media personnel, interviewers, bloggers, etc. @@ -50,6 +59,7 @@ Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was o --> A tacky trophy? Giant paper wallet? Honorary contractor giant 'cheque'? --> Something more technical (to illustrate something decred specific would be ideal)... ----> Artwork or something that could be anchored into DCRTime (allowing us to show off DCRTime...) +----> Could we tie this into the launch of the DEX somehow? - If this is successful, should it continue or be a one off affair? From 12ff4e284f1b347ea289da581669d5e2bb0f5a0f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lewildbeast Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 14:44:07 +1000 Subject: [PATCH 05/20] update --- Proposal | 28 ++-------------------------- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-) diff --git a/Proposal b/Proposal index 374a537..0e5295e 100644 --- a/Proposal +++ b/Proposal @@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ Award recipients will be nominated by existing coding contractors since no other // Could just post the question on Matrix (I believe all contractors use Matrix...) Outreach to (B)IP authors should be done by individuals well known, ideally both within the Decred community and also on social media. Direct contact should be sought with the authors first followed by contact over social media channels. Permission for a short video interview (30 minutes) would be sought and should focus on the reason the (B)IP was created. -// checkmate, richard red, exitus, permabull nino, jz +// checkmate, richard red, exitus, permabull nino, jz, ammarooni, svitekpavel [feel free to add your name here!] Since we would know who the reward recipients will be in advance of the recipients themselves, we should take the opportunity to prepare some media pieces for release. The topics to focus on should include: - Reason the (B)IP was created, the problem that it identifies and addresses @@ -66,28 +66,4 @@ Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was o - COULD THE MEDIA PUBLICITY BACKFIRE? - - ---------------------------------------- -@richard red comments: -Hey, no problem -it's missing some detail on how it would work in practice. who selects the recipients? how does a recipient accept or reject this reward? how do we know the DCR is really being paid to the right person? -would the BIP authors have to come and claim it or does someone seek them out? - -@checkmatey -The idea is interesting but im really not sure about it. What BIPs or devs would you be considering? -To be honest, I would rather put up bounties for those interested to do work for the project -Remember, DCR was built from its own Bitcoin implementation. The decred devs already gifted that tech for free -LND wouldnt exist without it -And that code was shunned and cursed by the bitcoin.devs -Despite being quality code and very useful. -I dont believe this is a great way to earn much more than 1000DCR worth of sell pressure. - -@davecgh -That really largely depends if you want to consider early BIPs well before Decred ever started that were inherited. -I would say those probably really don't matter since Decred didn't exist. Since then though, I think 4 - -@jet_user -In a way Decred is already taking advantage of the thoughtwork done for some BIPs. Talking about client-side filters of course (BIP 157 and 158). A related thing is CSPP, which iirc does not have a BIP. What both of these pieces of work have in common is that they received a serious engineering effort to implement in Decred. I think people who have spent significant effort developing these ideas would be happy to know they came to reality in Decred, even though they were originally intended for another system. - -Airdropping DCR on these talented people is a very interesting idea in line with our builder culture. I cannot lead organizing this, but if someone does I'd throw a few DCR in the pool! +*** INTERESTED IN HELPING OUT, ADD YOUR DETAILS BELOW *** From 7db74008a5df208ca0ba95147dd1090eb5e58bb9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lewildbeast Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 15:41:12 +1000 Subject: [PATCH 06/20] update --- Proposal | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/Proposal b/Proposal index 0e5295e..aa60878 100644 --- a/Proposal +++ b/Proposal @@ -24,8 +24,8 @@ I hope the media team does not request payment as well as I feel it undermines/c // This may be wishful thinking on my part so will budget in here // [budget to complete later] // --> Perhaps they could be compensated by community donations (risky as there may be no donors...) -// ---> What about Ark Invest? (Will this look bad? Worse, BACKFIRE?) -// --> Could be used as proof of 'work' for aspiring contractors... (maybe nobody will take the bite) +// ---> What about corporate sponsorship? (Would they go for this? Will this look bad? Worse, BACKFIRE?) +// --> Could be used as proof of 'work' for aspiring media contractors... (maybe nobody will take the bite) ** Execution Award recipients will be nominated by existing coding contractors since no other group would have the required knowledge of which improvement protocols or ideas were used. Award recipients and their corresponding (B)IPs could be verified by everybody else in during the 'In Discussion' phase of the Politea process. The recipients will all be mentioned by name along with their contribution in during the 'Voting" phase of the Politea process. From 8a488a66f76161f488fef31cef3e2ee76f1751ff Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lewildbeast Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 17:17:14 +1000 Subject: [PATCH 07/20] update --- Proposal | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Proposal b/Proposal index aa60878..d6ebf66 100644 --- a/Proposal +++ b/Proposal @@ -33,7 +33,8 @@ Award recipients will be nominated by existing coding contractors since no other // Could just post the question on Matrix (I believe all contractors use Matrix...) Outreach to (B)IP authors should be done by individuals well known, ideally both within the Decred community and also on social media. Direct contact should be sought with the authors first followed by contact over social media channels. Permission for a short video interview (30 minutes) would be sought and should focus on the reason the (B)IP was created. -// checkmate, richard red, exitus, permabull nino, jz, ammarooni, svitekpavel [feel free to add your name here!] +// I'm thinking: checkmate, richard red, exitus, permabull nino, jz, ammarooni, svitekpavel [feel free to add your name here!] +// They've not been approached yet! Since we would know who the reward recipients will be in advance of the recipients themselves, we should take the opportunity to prepare some media pieces for release. The topics to focus on should include: - Reason the (B)IP was created, the problem that it identifies and addresses From b450c15264f9e9ffc8add38586c18689d369277c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lewildbeast Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2020 17:23:47 +1000 Subject: [PATCH 08/20] update --- Proposal | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/Proposal b/Proposal index d6ebf66..efb64d8 100644 --- a/Proposal +++ b/Proposal @@ -18,6 +18,7 @@ In order to capitalize on this we will need to give our media team lead time to ** Financial Considerations The only funds requested are those that go to the rewards. // Assuming 3-6 awards, that would be 3000-6000 DCR +// Perhaps an alternative format to consider would be to award the 3 best (B)IPs that have improved Decred which would then limit the 'costing' of this proposal. The author of this proposal does not request payment. I hope the media team does not request payment as well as I feel it undermines/complicates the process or worse, make us come off looking like we are trying to profiteer from the award. From 05aece5361b111bfa85a9970a3db7f975902ae11 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: xaur <24484727+xaur@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 22:19:36 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 09/20] rename and move to drafts dir --- Proposal => drafts/awards.md | 0 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) rename Proposal => drafts/awards.md (100%) diff --git a/Proposal b/drafts/awards.md similarity index 100% rename from Proposal rename to drafts/awards.md From 86fa6a88f1da7f4ba0fa96d587edc9d6739c0600 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: xaur <24484727+xaur@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 22:30:37 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 10/20] fix headings --- drafts/awards.md | 11 ++++++----- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/drafts/awards.md b/drafts/awards.md index efb64d8..51891eb 100644 --- a/drafts/awards.md +++ b/drafts/awards.md @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ -****Feel free to share within Decred community**** +**Feel free to share within Decred community** -** Introduction +## Introduction BIPs are design documents for introducing new features into Bitcoin (similar "improvement proposal" systems exist for other Blockchain projects). For example, BIP 32 by Pieter Wuille introduced HD wallets into the Bitcoin ecosystem. This greatly simplified private key management and allowed for deterministic wallets to be interchanged between different clients or backed up through the use of seed words. Although not specifically designed for Decred, BIPs like this example have been successfully integrated into Decred helping advance the Decred project. Since the inception of Decred @davecgh estimates 4 BIPs have been incorporated. @@ -14,8 +14,8 @@ The secondary aims of this proposal are to highlight our treasury and governance In order to capitalize on this we will need to give our media team lead time to prepare. It would be vital to tap into media networks covering other projects so that news about Decred can break outside the bounds of /r/decred and #decred --the way to break down crypto tribalism and build relationships between our community and the others. +## Financial Considerations -** Financial Considerations The only funds requested are those that go to the rewards. // Assuming 3-6 awards, that would be 3000-6000 DCR // Perhaps an alternative format to consider would be to award the 3 best (B)IPs that have improved Decred which would then limit the 'costing' of this proposal. @@ -28,7 +28,8 @@ I hope the media team does not request payment as well as I feel it undermines/c // ---> What about corporate sponsorship? (Would they go for this? Will this look bad? Worse, BACKFIRE?) // --> Could be used as proof of 'work' for aspiring media contractors... (maybe nobody will take the bite) -** Execution +## Execution + Award recipients will be nominated by existing coding contractors since no other group would have the required knowledge of which improvement protocols or ideas were used. Award recipients and their corresponding (B)IPs could be verified by everybody else in during the 'In Discussion' phase of the Politea process. The recipients will all be mentioned by name along with their contribution in during the 'Voting" phase of the Politea process. // Our contractors only need to identify the idea and author(s) involved so this should not take long. // Could just post the question on Matrix (I believe all contractors use Matrix...) @@ -47,7 +48,7 @@ Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was o // Obtaining expression of interest for social media personnel, interviewers, bloggers, etc. // If they do this for a fee we might be perceived as just doing this as a PR stunt which may alienate the award winners... -** Issues +## Issues - Treatment of (B)IPs that were 'inherited' before Decred started --> Will need to get numbers and (B)IPs that fall into category. Current thought is that we need to define a start point or we may have too many reward recipients. From 75518aec63c375f47928a1caccb977e4c7548144 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: xaur <24484727+xaur@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 22:33:02 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 11/20] fix space --- drafts/awards.md | 10 +++++----- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/drafts/awards.md b/drafts/awards.md index 51891eb..99ba8cb 100644 --- a/drafts/awards.md +++ b/drafts/awards.md @@ -2,7 +2,7 @@ ## Introduction -BIPs are design documents for introducing new features into Bitcoin (similar "improvement proposal" systems exist for other Blockchain projects). For example, BIP 32 by Pieter Wuille introduced HD wallets into the Bitcoin ecosystem. This greatly simplified private key management and allowed for deterministic wallets to be interchanged between different clients or backed up through the use of seed words. Although not specifically designed for Decred, BIPs like this example have been successfully integrated into Decred helping advance the Decred project. Since the inception of Decred @davecgh estimates 4 BIPs have been incorporated. +BIPs are design documents for introducing new features into Bitcoin (similar "improvement proposal" systems exist for other Blockchain projects). For example, BIP 32 by Pieter Wuille introduced HD wallets into the Bitcoin ecosystem. This greatly simplified private key management and allowed for deterministic wallets to be interchanged between different clients or backed up through the use of seed words. Although not specifically designed for Decred, BIPs like this example have been successfully integrated into Decred helping advance the Decred project. Since the inception of Decred @davecgh estimates 4 BIPs have been incorporated. The individuals or groups capable of developing (B)IPs represent a small pool of developers familiar with Blockchain fundamentals who are interested in improving Bitcoin or their respective project. It would be to our benefit that we attract such talent. I propose using a small portion of the treasury funds as an award for (B)IP authors if their work has contributed to the advancement of the Decred project. I think 1000 DCR per BIP [actual amount to be decided upon later: will depend on number of reward candidates and other possible expenses] represents a reasonable acknowledgement of their contribution. The reward will only be given out once in the event an author(s) has contributed more than 1 BIP. @@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ In order to capitalize on this we will need to give our media team lead time to ## Financial Considerations -The only funds requested are those that go to the rewards. +The only funds requested are those that go to the rewards. // Assuming 3-6 awards, that would be 3000-6000 DCR // Perhaps an alternative format to consider would be to award the 3 best (B)IPs that have improved Decred which would then limit the 'costing' of this proposal. @@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ I hope the media team does not request payment as well as I feel it undermines/c // This may be wishful thinking on my part so will budget in here // [budget to complete later] // --> Perhaps they could be compensated by community donations (risky as there may be no donors...) -// ---> What about corporate sponsorship? (Would they go for this? Will this look bad? Worse, BACKFIRE?) +// ---> What about corporate sponsorship? (Would they go for this? Will this look bad? Worse, BACKFIRE?) // --> Could be used as proof of 'work' for aspiring media contractors... (maybe nobody will take the bite) ## Execution @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ Award recipients will be nominated by existing coding contractors since no other Outreach to (B)IP authors should be done by individuals well known, ideally both within the Decred community and also on social media. Direct contact should be sought with the authors first followed by contact over social media channels. Permission for a short video interview (30 minutes) would be sought and should focus on the reason the (B)IP was created. // I'm thinking: checkmate, richard red, exitus, permabull nino, jz, ammarooni, svitekpavel [feel free to add your name here!] -// They've not been approached yet! +// They've not been approached yet! Since we would know who the reward recipients will be in advance of the recipients themselves, we should take the opportunity to prepare some media pieces for release. The topics to focus on should include: - Reason the (B)IP was created, the problem that it identifies and addresses @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ Since we would know who the reward recipients will be in advance of the recipien // who would be willing to write? Do we need to vet the documents? I would be happy to but I also realize to the community I am a reasonably unknown entity (by choice). Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was obtained to promote our self sovereign treasury and to distinguish it from how other cryptocurrency projects are funded. -// Obtaining expression of interest for social media personnel, interviewers, bloggers, etc. +// Obtaining expression of interest for social media personnel, interviewers, bloggers, etc. // If they do this for a fee we might be perceived as just doing this as a PR stunt which may alienate the award winners... ## Issues From 4845db032dd9577d7137ded565a0993fd4ec3eb0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: xaur <24484727+xaur@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 22:40:18 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 12/20] fix bullets and paragraphs --- drafts/awards.md | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) diff --git a/drafts/awards.md b/drafts/awards.md index 99ba8cb..ab68729 100644 --- a/drafts/awards.md +++ b/drafts/awards.md @@ -17,56 +17,62 @@ In order to capitalize on this we will need to give our media team lead time to ## Financial Considerations The only funds requested are those that go to the rewards. -// Assuming 3-6 awards, that would be 3000-6000 DCR -// Perhaps an alternative format to consider would be to award the 3 best (B)IPs that have improved Decred which would then limit the 'costing' of this proposal. + +- // Assuming 3-6 awards, that would be 3000-6000 DCR +- // Perhaps an alternative format to consider would be to award the 3 best (B)IPs that have improved Decred which would then limit the 'costing' of this proposal. The author of this proposal does not request payment. + I hope the media team does not request payment as well as I feel it undermines/complicates the process or worse, make us come off looking like we are trying to profiteer from the award. -// This may be wishful thinking on my part so will budget in here -// [budget to complete later] -// --> Perhaps they could be compensated by community donations (risky as there may be no donors...) -// ---> What about corporate sponsorship? (Would they go for this? Will this look bad? Worse, BACKFIRE?) -// --> Could be used as proof of 'work' for aspiring media contractors... (maybe nobody will take the bite) + +- // This may be wishful thinking on my part so will budget in here +- // [budget to complete later] +- // Perhaps they could be compensated by community donations (risky as there may be no donors...) +- // What about corporate sponsorship? (Would they go for this? Will this look bad? Worse, BACKFIRE?) +- // Could be used as proof of 'work' for aspiring media contractors... (maybe nobody will take the bite) ## Execution Award recipients will be nominated by existing coding contractors since no other group would have the required knowledge of which improvement protocols or ideas were used. Award recipients and their corresponding (B)IPs could be verified by everybody else in during the 'In Discussion' phase of the Politea process. The recipients will all be mentioned by name along with their contribution in during the 'Voting" phase of the Politea process. -// Our contractors only need to identify the idea and author(s) involved so this should not take long. -// Could just post the question on Matrix (I believe all contractors use Matrix...) + +- // Our contractors only need to identify the idea and author(s) involved so this should not take long. +- // Could just post the question on Matrix (I believe all contractors use Matrix...) Outreach to (B)IP authors should be done by individuals well known, ideally both within the Decred community and also on social media. Direct contact should be sought with the authors first followed by contact over social media channels. Permission for a short video interview (30 minutes) would be sought and should focus on the reason the (B)IP was created. -// I'm thinking: checkmate, richard red, exitus, permabull nino, jz, ammarooni, svitekpavel [feel free to add your name here!] -// They've not been approached yet! + +- // I'm thinking: checkmate, richard red, exitus, permabull nino, jz, ammarooni, svitekpavel [feel free to add your name here!] +- // They've not been approached yet! Since we would know who the reward recipients will be in advance of the recipients themselves, we should take the opportunity to prepare some media pieces for release. The topics to focus on should include: + - Reason the (B)IP was created, the problem that it identifies and addresses - Any barriers faced in putting the idea forward, any push back from the intended community - Any limitations of the original infrastructure (things that our DCPs address) that would have resulted in more seamless integration -// who would be willing to write? Do we need to vet the documents? I would be happy to but I also realize to the community I am a reasonably unknown entity (by choice). +- // who would be willing to write? Do we need to vet the documents? I would be happy to but I also realize to the community I am a reasonably unknown entity (by choice). Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was obtained to promote our self sovereign treasury and to distinguish it from how other cryptocurrency projects are funded. -// Obtaining expression of interest for social media personnel, interviewers, bloggers, etc. -// If they do this for a fee we might be perceived as just doing this as a PR stunt which may alienate the award winners... + +- // Obtaining expression of interest for social media personnel, interviewers, bloggers, etc. +- // If they do this for a fee we might be perceived as just doing this as a PR stunt which may alienate the award winners... ## Issues - Treatment of (B)IPs that were 'inherited' before Decred started ---> Will need to get numbers and (B)IPs that fall into category. Current thought is that we need to define a start point or we may have too many reward recipients. ---> How to deal with ideas that clearly originated from other projects which did not necessarily originate as (B)IPs... e.g. CSPP (credit: jet_user) + - Will need to get numbers and (B)IPs that fall into category. Current thought is that we need to define a start point or we may have too many reward recipients. + - How to deal with ideas that clearly originated from other projects which did not necessarily originate as (B)IPs... e.g. CSPP (credit: jet_user) - Recipients may reject our reward or decline being interviewed. ---> We could still spin this in a good light e.g: still publicly acknowledge that a (B)IP was incorporated into Decred because we agree it is a good proposal, how it betters Decred. ---> We can highlight how Decred seeks to incorporate sound ideas which may originate from other projects + - We could still spin this in a good light e.g: still publicly acknowledge that a (B)IP was incorporated into Decred because we agree it is a good proposal, how it betters Decred. + - We can highlight how Decred seeks to incorporate sound ideas which may originate from other projects - What form the reward should take? ---> A tacky trophy? Giant paper wallet? Honorary contractor giant 'cheque'? ---> Something more technical (to illustrate something decred specific would be ideal)... -----> Artwork or something that could be anchored into DCRTime (allowing us to show off DCRTime...) -----> Could we tie this into the launch of the DEX somehow? + - A tacky trophy? Giant paper wallet? Honorary contractor giant 'cheque'? + - Something more technical (to illustrate something decred specific would be ideal)... + - Artwork or something that could be anchored into DCRTime (allowing us to show off DCRTime...) + - Could we tie this into the launch of the DEX somehow? - If this is successful, should it continue or be a one off affair? - COULD THE MEDIA PUBLICITY BACKFIRE? - -*** INTERESTED IN HELPING OUT, ADD YOUR DETAILS BELOW *** +*** **INTERESTED IN HELPING OUT, ADD YOUR DETAILS BELOW** *** From 79e9d39623e01fa403a0318770574d64e4301799 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: xaur <24484727+xaur@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2020 22:56:40 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 13/20] typos, nits --- drafts/awards.md | 37 +++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) diff --git a/drafts/awards.md b/drafts/awards.md index ab68729..3adc3f2 100644 --- a/drafts/awards.md +++ b/drafts/awards.md @@ -1,18 +1,16 @@ -**Feel free to share within Decred community** - ## Introduction -BIPs are design documents for introducing new features into Bitcoin (similar "improvement proposal" systems exist for other Blockchain projects). For example, BIP 32 by Pieter Wuille introduced HD wallets into the Bitcoin ecosystem. This greatly simplified private key management and allowed for deterministic wallets to be interchanged between different clients or backed up through the use of seed words. Although not specifically designed for Decred, BIPs like this example have been successfully integrated into Decred helping advance the Decred project. Since the inception of Decred @davecgh estimates 4 BIPs have been incorporated. +BIPs are design documents for introducing new features into Bitcoin (similar "improvement proposal" systems exist for other blockchain projects). For example, [BIP 32](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki) by Pieter Wuille introduced HD wallets into the Bitcoin ecosystem. This greatly simplified private key management and allowed for deterministic wallets to be interchanged between different clients or backed up through the use of seed words. Although not specifically designed for Decred, BIPs like this example have been successfully integrated into Decred helping advance the Decred project. Since the inception of Decred @davecgh estimates 4 BIPs have been incorporated. -The individuals or groups capable of developing (B)IPs represent a small pool of developers familiar with Blockchain fundamentals who are interested in improving Bitcoin or their respective project. It would be to our benefit that we attract such talent. I propose using a small portion of the treasury funds as an award for (B)IP authors if their work has contributed to the advancement of the Decred project. I think 1000 DCR per BIP [actual amount to be decided upon later: will depend on number of reward candidates and other possible expenses] represents a reasonable acknowledgement of their contribution. The reward will only be given out once in the event an author(s) has contributed more than 1 BIP. +The individuals or groups capable of developing (B)IPs represent a small pool of developers familiar with blockchain fundamentals who are interested in improving Bitcoin or their respective project. It would be to our benefit that we attract such talent. I propose using a small portion of the treasury funds as an award for (B)IP authors if their work has contributed to the advancement of the Decred project. I think 1,000 DCR per BIP [actual amount to be decided upon later: will depend on number of reward candidates and other possible expenses] represents a reasonable acknowledgement of their contribution. The reward will only be given out once in the event an author(s) has contributed more than 1 BIP. -I expect the response will lie on a continuum from "Positive" to "Indifferent" with most feeling acknowledged and validated in some way. I would expect most of them to look into the source of the reward which may form the initial point of contact into Decred. Of course, not everybody that looks at Decred will be attracted to it and it is entirely possible that they may move on to sell their reward. That said I believe programmers with an understanding of blockchain fundamentals will appreciate the unique features offered by our Blockchain project and hopefully this will incentivize them to contribute to our code base. +I expect the response will lie on a continuum from "Positive" to "Indifferent" with most feeling acknowledged and validated in some way. I would expect most of them to look into the source of the reward which may form the initial point of contact into Decred. Of course, not everybody that looks at Decred will be attracted to it and it is entirely possible that they may move on to sell their reward. That said I believe programmers with an understanding of blockchain fundamentals will appreciate the unique features offered by our project and hopefully this will incentivize them to contribute to our code base. Whilst most Politea proposals are priced in USD and then converted to DCR, I believe this undermines the value of giving the reward in DCR. This proposal specifically requests the reward be paid out as DCR only as doing so would can incentivize the recipient to work towards increasing the value of DCR held. Having the rewards priced in DCR only also illustrate the global nature of this project and is also symbolic of our move away from fiat. -The secondary aims of this proposal are to highlight our treasury and governance system as well as generate positive attention from outside our community. By shoing our capacity to acknowledge good ideas from everywhere in the crypto space and showing how they were incorporated into Decred, we can demonstrate maturity of thought and our collective capacity in making decisions that can move the project forward. In doing this, we will ultimately bring more users and developers into our community and strengthen it. +The secondary aims of this proposal are to highlight our treasury and governance system as well as generate positive attention from outside our community. By showing our capacity to acknowledge good ideas from everywhere in the crypto space and showing how they were incorporated into Decred, we can demonstrate maturity of thought and our collective capacity in making decisions that can move the project forward. In doing this, we will ultimately bring more users and developers into our community and strengthen it. -In order to capitalize on this we will need to give our media team lead time to prepare. It would be vital to tap into media networks covering other projects so that news about Decred can break outside the bounds of /r/decred and #decred --the way to break down crypto tribalism and build relationships between our community and the others. +In order to capitalize on this we will need to give our media team lead time to prepare. It would be vital to tap into media networks covering other projects so that news about Decred can break outside the bounds of /r/decred and chats - the way to break down crypto tribalism and build relationships between our community and the others. ## Financial Considerations @@ -29,50 +27,53 @@ I hope the media team does not request payment as well as I feel it undermines/c - // [budget to complete later] - // Perhaps they could be compensated by community donations (risky as there may be no donors...) - // What about corporate sponsorship? (Would they go for this? Will this look bad? Worse, BACKFIRE?) -- // Could be used as proof of 'work' for aspiring media contractors... (maybe nobody will take the bite) +- // Could be used as proof of "work" for aspiring media contractors... (maybe nobody will take the bite) ## Execution -Award recipients will be nominated by existing coding contractors since no other group would have the required knowledge of which improvement protocols or ideas were used. Award recipients and their corresponding (B)IPs could be verified by everybody else in during the 'In Discussion' phase of the Politea process. The recipients will all be mentioned by name along with their contribution in during the 'Voting" phase of the Politea process. +Award recipients will be nominated by existing developer contractors since no other group would have the required knowledge of which improvement protocols or ideas were used. Award recipients and their corresponding (B)IPs could be verified by everyone else during the "In Discussion" phase of the Politea process. The recipients will all be mentioned by name along with their contribution during the "Voting" phase of the Politea process. - // Our contractors only need to identify the idea and author(s) involved so this should not take long. - // Could just post the question on Matrix (I believe all contractors use Matrix...) Outreach to (B)IP authors should be done by individuals well known, ideally both within the Decred community and also on social media. Direct contact should be sought with the authors first followed by contact over social media channels. Permission for a short video interview (30 minutes) would be sought and should focus on the reason the (B)IP was created. -- // I'm thinking: checkmate, richard red, exitus, permabull nino, jz, ammarooni, svitekpavel [feel free to add your name here!] +- // I'm thinking: Checkmate, richardred, Exitus, permabullnino, jz, ammarooni, svitekpavel [feel free to add your name here!] - // They've not been approached yet! Since we would know who the reward recipients will be in advance of the recipients themselves, we should take the opportunity to prepare some media pieces for release. The topics to focus on should include: - Reason the (B)IP was created, the problem that it identifies and addresses -- Any barriers faced in putting the idea forward, any push back from the intended community +- Any barriers faced in putting the idea forward, any pushback from the intended community - Any limitations of the original infrastructure (things that our DCPs address) that would have resulted in more seamless integration - // who would be willing to write? Do we need to vet the documents? I would be happy to but I also realize to the community I am a reasonably unknown entity (by choice). -Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was obtained to promote our self sovereign treasury and to distinguish it from how other cryptocurrency projects are funded. +Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was obtained to promote our self-sovereign treasury and to distinguish it from how other cryptocurrency projects are funded. - // Obtaining expression of interest for social media personnel, interviewers, bloggers, etc. - // If they do this for a fee we might be perceived as just doing this as a PR stunt which may alienate the award winners... ## Issues -- Treatment of (B)IPs that were 'inherited' before Decred started - - Will need to get numbers and (B)IPs that fall into category. Current thought is that we need to define a start point or we may have too many reward recipients. - - How to deal with ideas that clearly originated from other projects which did not necessarily originate as (B)IPs... e.g. CSPP (credit: jet_user) +- Treatment of (B)IPs that were "inherited" before Decred started + + - Will need to get numbers and (B)IPs that fall into category. Current thought is that we need to define a starting point or we may have too many reward recipients. + - How to deal with ideas that clearly originated from other projects which did not necessarily originate as (B)IPs... e.g. CSPP (credit: jet\_user) - Recipients may reject our reward or decline being interviewed. + - We could still spin this in a good light e.g: still publicly acknowledge that a (B)IP was incorporated into Decred because we agree it is a good proposal, how it betters Decred. - We can highlight how Decred seeks to incorporate sound ideas which may originate from other projects - What form the reward should take? - - A tacky trophy? Giant paper wallet? Honorary contractor giant 'cheque'? + + - A tacky trophy? Giant paper wallet? Honorary contractor giant "cheque"? - Something more technical (to illustrate something decred specific would be ideal)... - Artwork or something that could be anchored into DCRTime (allowing us to show off DCRTime...) - Could we tie this into the launch of the DEX somehow? -- If this is successful, should it continue or be a one off affair? +- If this is successful, should it continue or be a one-off affair? - COULD THE MEDIA PUBLICITY BACKFIRE? -*** **INTERESTED IN HELPING OUT, ADD YOUR DETAILS BELOW** *** +*** **INTERESTED IN HELPING OUT, PLEASE ADD YOUR DETAILS BELOW** *** From 7f2a2424c7609edda57f344f0c44989584140955 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lewildbeast Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2020 15:33:32 +1000 Subject: [PATCH 14/20] Update awards.md Changed the context of the award to include new ideas that may not have made their way into decred as a way to avoid "Maxis" and also to try and get more bang for the buck. As others have pointed out, "paying" for past contributions may be illogical. --- drafts/awards.md | 35 ++++++++++++----------------------- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) diff --git a/drafts/awards.md b/drafts/awards.md index 3adc3f2..26540c5 100644 --- a/drafts/awards.md +++ b/drafts/awards.md @@ -1,8 +1,8 @@ ## Introduction -BIPs are design documents for introducing new features into Bitcoin (similar "improvement proposal" systems exist for other blockchain projects). For example, [BIP 32](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki) by Pieter Wuille introduced HD wallets into the Bitcoin ecosystem. This greatly simplified private key management and allowed for deterministic wallets to be interchanged between different clients or backed up through the use of seed words. Although not specifically designed for Decred, BIPs like this example have been successfully integrated into Decred helping advance the Decred project. Since the inception of Decred @davecgh estimates 4 BIPs have been incorporated. +Improvement protocols are design documents for introducing new features into a project. For example, ["Bitcoin Improvement Protocol" (BIP) 32](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki) by Pieter Wuille introduced HD wallets into the Bitcoin ecosystem. This greatly simplified private key management and allowed for deterministic wallets to be interchanged between different clients or backed up through the use of seed words. Although not specifically designed for Decred, IPs like this example have been successfully integrated into Decred helping advance the Decred project. -The individuals or groups capable of developing (B)IPs represent a small pool of developers familiar with blockchain fundamentals who are interested in improving Bitcoin or their respective project. It would be to our benefit that we attract such talent. I propose using a small portion of the treasury funds as an award for (B)IP authors if their work has contributed to the advancement of the Decred project. I think 1,000 DCR per BIP [actual amount to be decided upon later: will depend on number of reward candidates and other possible expenses] represents a reasonable acknowledgement of their contribution. The reward will only be given out once in the event an author(s) has contributed more than 1 BIP. +The individuals or groups capable of developing IPs or publishing blockchain papers such as ["P2P Mixing and Unlinkable Bitcoin Transaction"](https://decred.org/research/ruffing2016.pdf), on which our privacy code is based, represent a small pool of developers familiar with blockchain fundamentals who are motivated to improve their respective project. It would be to our benefit that we attract such talent. I propose using a small portion of the treasury funds as an award for IP authors if their work has the potential to contribute to the advancement of the Decred project. I think 500 DCR per IP or idea (henceforth referred to as IP) represents a reasonable acknowledgement of their contribution. The reward will only be given out once in the event an author(s) has contributed more than 1 IP. For the inaugural awards, I propose 3 awards be given out. I expect the response will lie on a continuum from "Positive" to "Indifferent" with most feeling acknowledged and validated in some way. I would expect most of them to look into the source of the reward which may form the initial point of contact into Decred. Of course, not everybody that looks at Decred will be attracted to it and it is entirely possible that they may move on to sell their reward. That said I believe programmers with an understanding of blockchain fundamentals will appreciate the unique features offered by our project and hopefully this will incentivize them to contribute to our code base. @@ -10,42 +10,38 @@ Whilst most Politea proposals are priced in USD and then converted to DCR, I bel The secondary aims of this proposal are to highlight our treasury and governance system as well as generate positive attention from outside our community. By showing our capacity to acknowledge good ideas from everywhere in the crypto space and showing how they were incorporated into Decred, we can demonstrate maturity of thought and our collective capacity in making decisions that can move the project forward. In doing this, we will ultimately bring more users and developers into our community and strengthen it. -In order to capitalize on this we will need to give our media team lead time to prepare. It would be vital to tap into media networks covering other projects so that news about Decred can break outside the bounds of /r/decred and chats - the way to break down crypto tribalism and build relationships between our community and the others. +In order to maximize the good publicity on this we will need to give our media team some lead time to prepare before the awards are officially given out. It would be vital to tap into media networks covering other projects so that news about Decred can break outside the bounds of /r/decred and #decred . I see this as a way to break down crypto tribalism and build healthy relationships between our community and others. ## Financial Considerations -The only funds requested are those that go to the rewards. - -- // Assuming 3-6 awards, that would be 3000-6000 DCR -- // Perhaps an alternative format to consider would be to award the 3 best (B)IPs that have improved Decred which would then limit the 'costing' of this proposal. +The only funds requested at this time will be those that go to the three awards (500 x 3 DCR). Funds will only be taken from the treaury if the content creation costs have passed through the Politea process (see below). The author of this proposal does not request payment. -I hope the media team does not request payment as well as I feel it undermines/complicates the process or worse, make us come off looking like we are trying to profiteer from the award. +It would be ideal if the media team does not request payment as well for the first three awards as I feel it undermines/complicates the essence of the awards and makes us come off looking like we are trying to profiteer from the award. However, the economics of the real world makes this unlikely, hence the need for the follow up proposal. In the follow up proposal, I will put the pricing for the required content creation up for voting. -- // This may be wishful thinking on my part so will budget in here -- // [budget to complete later] - // Perhaps they could be compensated by community donations (risky as there may be no donors...) - // What about corporate sponsorship? (Would they go for this? Will this look bad? Worse, BACKFIRE?) - // Could be used as proof of "work" for aspiring media contractors... (maybe nobody will take the bite) ## Execution -Award recipients will be nominated by existing developer contractors since no other group would have the required knowledge of which improvement protocols or ideas were used. Award recipients and their corresponding (B)IPs could be verified by everyone else during the "In Discussion" phase of the Politea process. The recipients will all be mentioned by name along with their contribution during the "Voting" phase of the Politea process. +Award recipients will be nominated by our existing developers/ contractors since no other group would have the required knowledge of which improvement protocols or ideas are useful. Award candidates and their corresponding IPs could be verified by everyone else during the "In Discussion" phase of the Politea process. The final three candidates will be mentioned by name along with their contribution in the Politea proposal during the "Voting" phase of the Politea process. - // Our contractors only need to identify the idea and author(s) involved so this should not take long. - // Could just post the question on Matrix (I believe all contractors use Matrix...) -Outreach to (B)IP authors should be done by individuals well known, ideally both within the Decred community and also on social media. Direct contact should be sought with the authors first followed by contact over social media channels. Permission for a short video interview (30 minutes) would be sought and should focus on the reason the (B)IP was created. +Outreach to IP authors should be done by individuals well known, ideally both within the Decred community and also on social media. Direct contact should be sought with the authors first followed by contact over social media channels. Permission for a short video interview (30 minutes) would be sought and should focus on the reason the IP was created. - // I'm thinking: Checkmate, richardred, Exitus, permabullnino, jz, ammarooni, svitekpavel [feel free to add your name here!] - // They've not been approached yet! Since we would know who the reward recipients will be in advance of the recipients themselves, we should take the opportunity to prepare some media pieces for release. The topics to focus on should include: -- Reason the (B)IP was created, the problem that it identifies and addresses +- Reason the IP was created, the problem that it identifies and addresses - Any barriers faced in putting the idea forward, any pushback from the intended community - Any limitations of the original infrastructure (things that our DCPs address) that would have resulted in more seamless integration + - // who would be willing to write? Do we need to vet the documents? I would be happy to but I also realize to the community I am a reasonably unknown entity (by choice). Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was obtained to promote our self-sovereign treasury and to distinguish it from how other cryptocurrency projects are funded. @@ -55,19 +51,12 @@ Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was o ## Issues -- Treatment of (B)IPs that were "inherited" before Decred started - - - Will need to get numbers and (B)IPs that fall into category. Current thought is that we need to define a starting point or we may have too many reward recipients. - - How to deal with ideas that clearly originated from other projects which did not necessarily originate as (B)IPs... e.g. CSPP (credit: jet\_user) - - Recipients may reject our reward or decline being interviewed. - - - We could still spin this in a good light e.g: still publicly acknowledge that a (B)IP was incorporated into Decred because we agree it is a good proposal, how it betters Decred. + - We could still spin this in a good light e.g: still publicly acknowledge that a (B)IP was incorporated into Decred because we agree it is a good proposal, how it can better Decred. - We can highlight how Decred seeks to incorporate sound ideas which may originate from other projects - What form the reward should take? - - - A tacky trophy? Giant paper wallet? Honorary contractor giant "cheque"? + - A tacky trophy? Giant paper wallet? Honorary contractor giant "cheque"? - Something more technical (to illustrate something decred specific would be ideal)... - Artwork or something that could be anchored into DCRTime (allowing us to show off DCRTime...) - Could we tie this into the launch of the DEX somehow? @@ -76,4 +65,4 @@ Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was o - COULD THE MEDIA PUBLICITY BACKFIRE? -*** **INTERESTED IN HELPING OUT, PLEASE ADD YOUR DETAILS BELOW** *** +**INTERESTED IN HELPING OUT, PLEASE ADD YOUR DETAILS BELOW** From 62206cc7f8cd420e8647e66c52d078d70ae36364 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lewildbeast Date: Sat, 29 Aug 2020 13:07:50 +1000 Subject: [PATCH 15/20] Update awards.md --- drafts/awards.md | 27 ++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/drafts/awards.md b/drafts/awards.md index 26540c5..849d3cb 100644 --- a/drafts/awards.md +++ b/drafts/awards.md @@ -1,48 +1,51 @@ ## Introduction -Improvement protocols are design documents for introducing new features into a project. For example, ["Bitcoin Improvement Protocol" (BIP) 32](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki) by Pieter Wuille introduced HD wallets into the Bitcoin ecosystem. This greatly simplified private key management and allowed for deterministic wallets to be interchanged between different clients or backed up through the use of seed words. Although not specifically designed for Decred, IPs like this example have been successfully integrated into Decred helping advance the Decred project. +Improvement protocols are design documents for introducing new ideas or features into a project. For example, ["Bitcoin Improvement Protocol" (BIP) 32](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki) by Pieter Wuille introduced HD wallets into the Bitcoin ecosystem. This greatly simplified private key management and allowed for deterministic wallets to be interchanged between different clients or backed up through the use of seed words. Although not specifically designed for Decred, IPs like this example have been successfully integrated into Decred helping advance the Decred project. -The individuals or groups capable of developing IPs or publishing blockchain papers such as ["P2P Mixing and Unlinkable Bitcoin Transaction"](https://decred.org/research/ruffing2016.pdf), on which our privacy code is based, represent a small pool of developers familiar with blockchain fundamentals who are motivated to improve their respective project. It would be to our benefit that we attract such talent. I propose using a small portion of the treasury funds as an award for IP authors if their work has the potential to contribute to the advancement of the Decred project. I think 500 DCR per IP or idea (henceforth referred to as IP) represents a reasonable acknowledgement of their contribution. The reward will only be given out once in the event an author(s) has contributed more than 1 IP. For the inaugural awards, I propose 3 awards be given out. +Other ideas which make their way into Decred may arise from research publications. For example ["P2P Mixing and Unlinkable Bitcoin Transaction"](https://decred.org/research/ruffing2016.pdf) by Ruffing, Moreno-Sanchez and Kate, form the basis for our privacy implementation. The individuals or groups capable of developing IPs or publishing research like this represent a small pool of developers familiar with blockchain fundamentals who are motivated to improve their respective project. It would be to our benefit that we attract such talent. I propose using a small portion of the treasury funds as an award for IP authors if their work has the potential to contribute to the advancement of the Decred project. I think 500 DCR per IP or idea (henceforth referred to as IP) represents a reasonable acknowledgement of their contribution. The reward will only be given out once in the event an author(s) has contributed more than 1 IP. For the inaugural awards, I propose 3 awards be given out. -I expect the response will lie on a continuum from "Positive" to "Indifferent" with most feeling acknowledged and validated in some way. I would expect most of them to look into the source of the reward which may form the initial point of contact into Decred. Of course, not everybody that looks at Decred will be attracted to it and it is entirely possible that they may move on to sell their reward. That said I believe programmers with an understanding of blockchain fundamentals will appreciate the unique features offered by our project and hopefully this will incentivize them to contribute to our code base. +I expect the response will lie on a continuum from "Positive" to "Indifferent" with most feeling acknowledged and validated in some way. I would expect most of them to look into the source of the reward which may form the initial point of contact into Decred. Of course, not everybody that looks at Decred will be attracted to it. In the worst case scenero it is entirely possible that they are completely disinterested in our project and move on to sell their award. I believe that many voters will see selling of the awarded DCR as a failure, but this is not necessarily the case. Whilst most Politea proposals are priced in USD and then converted to DCR, I believe this undermines the value of giving the reward in DCR. This proposal specifically requests the reward be paid out as DCR only as doing so would can incentivize the recipient to work towards increasing the value of DCR held. Having the rewards priced in DCR only also illustrate the global nature of this project and is also symbolic of our move away from fiat. The secondary aims of this proposal are to highlight our treasury and governance system as well as generate positive attention from outside our community. By showing our capacity to acknowledge good ideas from everywhere in the crypto space and showing how they were incorporated into Decred, we can demonstrate maturity of thought and our collective capacity in making decisions that can move the project forward. In doing this, we will ultimately bring more users and developers into our community and strengthen it. -In order to maximize the good publicity on this we will need to give our media team some lead time to prepare before the awards are officially given out. It would be vital to tap into media networks covering other projects so that news about Decred can break outside the bounds of /r/decred and #decred . I see this as a way to break down crypto tribalism and build healthy relationships between our community and others. +It would be vital to tap into media networks covering other projects so that news about Decred can break outside the bounds of /r/decred and #decred. I see this as a way to break down crypto tribalism and build healthy relationships between our community and others. ## Financial Considerations The only funds requested at this time will be those that go to the three awards (500 x 3 DCR). Funds will only be taken from the treaury if the content creation costs have passed through the Politea process (see below). -The author of this proposal does not request payment. +The author of this proposal does not request payment and excludes himself from being a reward recipient. -It would be ideal if the media team does not request payment as well for the first three awards as I feel it undermines/complicates the essence of the awards and makes us come off looking like we are trying to profiteer from the award. However, the economics of the real world makes this unlikely, hence the need for the follow up proposal. In the follow up proposal, I will put the pricing for the required content creation up for voting. +The costings for media content creation have not yet been factored in. It would be ideal if the media team does not request payment for this round of awards as I feel it undermines/complicates the essence of the awards and makes us come off looking like we are trying to profiteer from the award. However, the economics of the real world makes this unlikely, hence the need for the follow up proposal. In the follow up proposal, I will put the pricing for the required content creation up for voting. - // Perhaps they could be compensated by community donations (risky as there may be no donors...) - // What about corporate sponsorship? (Would they go for this? Will this look bad? Worse, BACKFIRE?) - // Could be used as proof of "work" for aspiring media contractors... (maybe nobody will take the bite) +- // Content creators, please drop me a message on Matrix with what you can do and your fee (if any). ## Execution -Award recipients will be nominated by our existing developers/ contractors since no other group would have the required knowledge of which improvement protocols or ideas are useful. Award candidates and their corresponding IPs could be verified by everyone else during the "In Discussion" phase of the Politea process. The final three candidates will be mentioned by name along with their contribution in the Politea proposal during the "Voting" phase of the Politea process. +Award recipients will be nominated by our existing developers/ contractors since no other group would have the required knowledge of which improvement protocols or ideas are useful. Award candidates and their corresponding IPs could be verified by everyone else during the "In Discussion" phase of the Politea process. It is expected there will be more than three award candidates. The final three candidates will be mentioned by name along with their contribution in the Politea proposal during the "Voting" phase of the Politea process. - // Our contractors only need to identify the idea and author(s) involved so this should not take long. - // Could just post the question on Matrix (I believe all contractors use Matrix...) +- // The problem would be who to choose if there are more than 3 candidates. Our devs should rank the importance of the contribution first and this could then be discussed on Politea. +- // I think it would be reasonable to exclude candidates that are known to be openly hostile towards our project. -Outreach to IP authors should be done by individuals well known, ideally both within the Decred community and also on social media. Direct contact should be sought with the authors first followed by contact over social media channels. Permission for a short video interview (30 minutes) would be sought and should focus on the reason the IP was created. +Outreach to IP authors should be done by individuals well known, ideally both within the Decred community and also on social media. Direct contact should be sought with the award recipients first followed by contact over social media channels if they agree to receive the award. Permission for a short video interview (30 minutes) would be sought. The reasons behind the award should also be stated explicitly. - // I'm thinking: Checkmate, richardred, Exitus, permabullnino, jz, ammarooni, svitekpavel [feel free to add your name here!] - // They've not been approached yet! Since we would know who the reward recipients will be in advance of the recipients themselves, we should take the opportunity to prepare some media pieces for release. The topics to focus on should include: -- Reason the IP was created, the problem that it identifies and addresses +- Reason the IP was published, the problem that it identifies and addresses - Any barriers faced in putting the idea forward, any pushback from the intended community - Any limitations of the original infrastructure (things that our DCPs address) that would have resulted in more seamless integration -- // who would be willing to write? Do we need to vet the documents? I would be happy to but I also realize to the community I am a reasonably unknown entity (by choice). +- // Who would be willing to write? Do we need to vet the documents? I would be happy to but I also realize to the community I am a reasonably unknown entity (by choice). Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was obtained to promote our self-sovereign treasury and to distinguish it from how other cryptocurrency projects are funded. @@ -52,7 +55,7 @@ Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was o ## Issues - Recipients may reject our reward or decline being interviewed. - - We could still spin this in a good light e.g: still publicly acknowledge that a (B)IP was incorporated into Decred because we agree it is a good proposal, how it can better Decred. + - We could still spin this in a good light e.g: still publicly acknowledge that a IP was incorporated into Decred because we agree it is a good proposal, how it can better Decred. - We can highlight how Decred seeks to incorporate sound ideas which may originate from other projects - What form the reward should take? @@ -60,6 +63,8 @@ Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was o - Something more technical (to illustrate something decred specific would be ideal)... - Artwork or something that could be anchored into DCRTime (allowing us to show off DCRTime...) - Could we tie this into the launch of the DEX somehow? + - Someway to tie into DCRTime... + - We should also give out some testnet DCR, a 1:1 DCR:tDCR would be aesthetically pleasing. - If this is successful, should it continue or be a one-off affair? From 80592e1df2f9569898bbaa9c4948d19c8bd541b7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lewildbeast Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 13:56:46 +1000 Subject: [PATCH 16/20] Update awards.md --- drafts/awards.md | 30 ++++++++++++++++-------------- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) diff --git a/drafts/awards.md b/drafts/awards.md index 849d3cb..d7bd97e 100644 --- a/drafts/awards.md +++ b/drafts/awards.md @@ -1,40 +1,42 @@ -## Introduction +## Executive Summary + +This Politea proposal seeks approval in establishing an award for three individuals or parties with talent that may benefit the Decred project who are not currently directly contributing to Decred. It specifies an amount of 1500 DCR for 3 awards be set aside and accessed only if the follow up proposal on media costings for the awards is approved. Shoud the latter fail, or be unable to be produced without cost to the community, no funds will be taken out of the treasury. -Improvement protocols are design documents for introducing new ideas or features into a project. For example, ["Bitcoin Improvement Protocol" (BIP) 32](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki) by Pieter Wuille introduced HD wallets into the Bitcoin ecosystem. This greatly simplified private key management and allowed for deterministic wallets to be interchanged between different clients or backed up through the use of seed words. Although not specifically designed for Decred, IPs like this example have been successfully integrated into Decred helping advance the Decred project. +## Introduction -Other ideas which make their way into Decred may arise from research publications. For example ["P2P Mixing and Unlinkable Bitcoin Transaction"](https://decred.org/research/ruffing2016.pdf) by Ruffing, Moreno-Sanchez and Kate, form the basis for our privacy implementation. The individuals or groups capable of developing IPs or publishing research like this represent a small pool of developers familiar with blockchain fundamentals who are motivated to improve their respective project. It would be to our benefit that we attract such talent. I propose using a small portion of the treasury funds as an award for IP authors if their work has the potential to contribute to the advancement of the Decred project. I think 500 DCR per IP or idea (henceforth referred to as IP) represents a reasonable acknowledgement of their contribution. The reward will only be given out once in the event an author(s) has contributed more than 1 IP. For the inaugural awards, I propose 3 awards be given out. +Improvement protocols are design documents for introducing new ideas or features into a project. For example, ["Bitcoin Improvement Protocol" (BIP) 32](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki) by Pieter Wuille introduced HD wallets into the Bitcoin ecosystem. This allowed for deterministic wallets to be interchanged between different clients or backed up through the use of seed words. Although not specifically designed for Decred, IPs like this example have been successfully integrated into Decred helping advance the Decred project. Other ideas which make their way into Decred may arise from research publications. For example ["P2P Mixing and Unlinkable Bitcoin Transaction"](https://decred.org/research/ruffing2016.pdf) by Ruffing, Moreno-Sanchez & Kate, form the basis of our privacy implementation. -I expect the response will lie on a continuum from "Positive" to "Indifferent" with most feeling acknowledged and validated in some way. I would expect most of them to look into the source of the reward which may form the initial point of contact into Decred. Of course, not everybody that looks at Decred will be attracted to it. In the worst case scenero it is entirely possible that they are completely disinterested in our project and move on to sell their award. I believe that many voters will see selling of the awarded DCR as a failure, but this is not necessarily the case. +The individuals or groups capable of developing IPs or publishing research at this calibre represent a small pool of individuals familiar with blockchain fundamentals who are motivated to improve the blockchain space. They may or may not be already affiliated with a blockchain project. It would be to our benefit that we attract such talent. I propose using a small portion of the treasury funds as an award for IP authors if their work has the potential to contribute to the advancement of Decred. I think 500 DCR per IP represents reasonable acknowledgement of their contribution(s). In the event an author has contributed more than 1 IP, only 1 award will be given out. I propose a total of 3 awards be given out as part of this proposal to limit cost and to test the feasibility of this idea. -Whilst most Politea proposals are priced in USD and then converted to DCR, I believe this undermines the value of giving the reward in DCR. This proposal specifically requests the reward be paid out as DCR only as doing so would can incentivize the recipient to work towards increasing the value of DCR held. Having the rewards priced in DCR only also illustrate the global nature of this project and is also symbolic of our move away from fiat. +I expect the response from the authors will lie on a continuum from "Positive" to "Indifferent" with most feeling acknowledged and validated in some way. I would expect most of them to look into the source of the reward which may form the initial point of contact into Decred. Of course, not everybody that looks at Decred will be attracted to it; others, for political reasons, may not want or be able to to publicly acknowledge Decred. Beyond that, there may also be some that will seek to vilify this benevolent gift. -The secondary aims of this proposal are to highlight our treasury and governance system as well as generate positive attention from outside our community. By showing our capacity to acknowledge good ideas from everywhere in the crypto space and showing how they were incorporated into Decred, we can demonstrate maturity of thought and our collective capacity in making decisions that can move the project forward. In doing this, we will ultimately bring more users and developers into our community and strengthen it. +The secondary aims of this proposal are to highlight our treasury and governance system as well as generate positive attention from outside our community. By showing our collective capacity to acknowledge good ideas from everywhere in the crypto space and showing how they were incorporated into Decred, we can demonstrate maturity of thought and our capacity in making decisions that can move the project forward. In doing this, we will ultimately attract more users and developers into our community and strengthen it. -It would be vital to tap into media networks covering other projects so that news about Decred can break outside the bounds of /r/decred and #decred. I see this as a way to break down crypto tribalism and build healthy relationships between our community and others. +Media networks covering other projects must be tapped so that news about Decred can break outside the bounds of /r/decred and #decred. The award would be pointless if our community receives no benefit. The award should help break down crypto tribalism and build healthy relationships between our community and others. ## Financial Considerations -The only funds requested at this time will be those that go to the three awards (500 x 3 DCR). Funds will only be taken from the treaury if the content creation costs have passed through the Politea process (see below). - -The author of this proposal does not request payment and excludes himself from being a reward recipient. +This proposal is only to seek approval from the Decred community to set aside 500 x 3 DCR to be used at the basis for the awards. This proposal specifically requests the award be calculated and paid in DCR as it illustrates the global nature of this project and is also symbolic of our move away from fiat. As author of this proposal, I do not request payment and exclude myself from being a reward recipient to prevent any conflicts of interest arising. -The costings for media content creation have not yet been factored in. It would be ideal if the media team does not request payment for this round of awards as I feel it undermines/complicates the essence of the awards and makes us come off looking like we are trying to profiteer from the award. However, the economics of the real world makes this unlikely, hence the need for the follow up proposal. In the follow up proposal, I will put the pricing for the required content creation up for voting. +Costings for media content creation will be factored into the subsequent proposal. I feel it would be ideal if the media team does not request payment in terms of content creation as this may open up a vector for negative comments or criticisms from the outside since it may be perceived as profiteering from the award. However, the economics of the real world may make this impossible, hence the need for transparency and a follow up proposal in which I will detail the pricing for the required content creation in order to put it to vote. - // Perhaps they could be compensated by community donations (risky as there may be no donors...) - // What about corporate sponsorship? (Would they go for this? Will this look bad? Worse, BACKFIRE?) -- // Could be used as proof of "work" for aspiring media contractors... (maybe nobody will take the bite) +- // Could be used as proof of "work" for aspiring media contractors... (maybe nobody will take the bite)i think - // Content creators, please drop me a message on Matrix with what you can do and your fee (if any). ## Execution -Award recipients will be nominated by our existing developers/ contractors since no other group would have the required knowledge of which improvement protocols or ideas are useful. Award candidates and their corresponding IPs could be verified by everyone else during the "In Discussion" phase of the Politea process. It is expected there will be more than three award candidates. The final three candidates will be mentioned by name along with their contribution in the Politea proposal during the "Voting" phase of the Politea process. +Award recipients will be nominated by our existing developers/contractors since no other group would have the required knowledge of which improvement protocols or ideas are useful. Award candidates and their corresponding IPs could be verified by everyone else during the "In Discussion" phase of the Politea process. It is expected there will be more than three award candidates. The final three candidates will be mentioned by name along with their contribution in the Politea proposal during the "Voting" phase of the Politea process. - // Our contractors only need to identify the idea and author(s) involved so this should not take long. - // Could just post the question on Matrix (I believe all contractors use Matrix...) - // The problem would be who to choose if there are more than 3 candidates. Our devs should rank the importance of the contribution first and this could then be discussed on Politea. - // I think it would be reasonable to exclude candidates that are known to be openly hostile towards our project. +- // **Draft of letter to be sent to developers (use dcrtime) +- // **Draft of letter to recipients (use dcrtime) -Outreach to IP authors should be done by individuals well known, ideally both within the Decred community and also on social media. Direct contact should be sought with the award recipients first followed by contact over social media channels if they agree to receive the award. Permission for a short video interview (30 minutes) would be sought. The reasons behind the award should also be stated explicitly. +Outreach to IP authors should be done by individuals well associated to the Decred community, ideally also a known entity on social media. Direct contact should be sought with the award recipients first followed by contact over social media channels if they agree to receive the award. Permission for a short video interview (30 minutes) would be sought. The reasons behind the award should also be stated explicitly. - // I'm thinking: Checkmate, richardred, Exitus, permabullnino, jz, ammarooni, svitekpavel [feel free to add your name here!] - // They've not been approached yet! From c0084d7151b43f5155937154b147fdece7f8f0fd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lewildbeast Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2020 17:29:37 +1000 Subject: [PATCH 17/20] Update awards.md --- drafts/awards.md | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------- 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-) diff --git a/drafts/awards.md b/drafts/awards.md index d7bd97e..fdd16e6 100644 --- a/drafts/awards.md +++ b/drafts/awards.md @@ -8,54 +8,60 @@ Improvement protocols are design documents for introducing new ideas or features The individuals or groups capable of developing IPs or publishing research at this calibre represent a small pool of individuals familiar with blockchain fundamentals who are motivated to improve the blockchain space. They may or may not be already affiliated with a blockchain project. It would be to our benefit that we attract such talent. I propose using a small portion of the treasury funds as an award for IP authors if their work has the potential to contribute to the advancement of Decred. I think 500 DCR per IP represents reasonable acknowledgement of their contribution(s). In the event an author has contributed more than 1 IP, only 1 award will be given out. I propose a total of 3 awards be given out as part of this proposal to limit cost and to test the feasibility of this idea. -I expect the response from the authors will lie on a continuum from "Positive" to "Indifferent" with most feeling acknowledged and validated in some way. I would expect most of them to look into the source of the reward which may form the initial point of contact into Decred. Of course, not everybody that looks at Decred will be attracted to it; others, for political reasons, may not want or be able to to publicly acknowledge Decred. Beyond that, there may also be some that will seek to vilify this benevolent gift. +I expect the response from the authors will lie on a continuum from "Positive" to "Indifferent" with most feeling acknowledged and validated in some way. I would expect most of them to look into the source of the reward which may form the initial point of contact into Decred. Of course, not everybody that looks at Decred will be attracted to it; others, for political reasons or otherwise, may not want or be able to to publicly acknowledge Decred. Beyond that, there may be some that will seek to vilify this benevolent gift. -The secondary aims of this proposal are to highlight our treasury and governance system as well as generate positive attention from outside our community. By showing our collective capacity to acknowledge good ideas from everywhere in the crypto space and showing how they were incorporated into Decred, we can demonstrate maturity of thought and our capacity in making decisions that can move the project forward. In doing this, we will ultimately attract more users and developers into our community and strengthen it. +The secondary aims of this proposal are to highlight our treasury and governance system as well as generate positive attention from outside our community via the media release. By showing our collective capacity to acknowledge good ideas from everywhere in the crypto space and showing how they were incorporated into Decred, we can demonstrate maturity of thought and our capacity in making decisions that can move the project forward. In doing this, we will ultimately attract more users and developers into our community and strengthen it. Media networks covering other projects must be tapped so that news about Decred can break outside the bounds of /r/decred and #decred. The award would be pointless if our community receives no benefit. The award should help break down crypto tribalism and build healthy relationships between our community and others. ## Financial Considerations -This proposal is only to seek approval from the Decred community to set aside 500 x 3 DCR to be used at the basis for the awards. This proposal specifically requests the award be calculated and paid in DCR as it illustrates the global nature of this project and is also symbolic of our move away from fiat. As author of this proposal, I do not request payment and exclude myself from being a reward recipient to prevent any conflicts of interest arising. +This proposal is only to seek approval from the Decred community to set aside 500 x 3 DCR to be used at the basis for the awards. This proposal is calculated and paid in DCR as it illustrates the global nature of this project and is also symbolic of our move away from fiat. As author of this proposal, I do not request payment and exclude myself from being a reward nominee or recipient to prevent any conflicts of interest arising. -Costings for media content creation will be factored into the subsequent proposal. I feel it would be ideal if the media team does not request payment in terms of content creation as this may open up a vector for negative comments or criticisms from the outside since it may be perceived as profiteering from the award. However, the economics of the real world may make this impossible, hence the need for transparency and a follow up proposal in which I will detail the pricing for the required content creation in order to put it to vote. +Costings for media content creation will be factored into the subsequent proposal. It would be ideal if the media team does not request payment in terms of content creation as this may open up a vector for negative comments or criticisms from the outside since it may be perceived as profiteering from the award. However, the economics of the real world may make this impossible, hence the need for transparency and a follow up proposal in which I will detail the pricing for the required content creation in order to put it to vote. - // Perhaps they could be compensated by community donations (risky as there may be no donors...) -- // What about corporate sponsorship? (Would they go for this? Will this look bad? Worse, BACKFIRE?) -- // Could be used as proof of "work" for aspiring media contractors... (maybe nobody will take the bite)i think -- // Content creators, please drop me a message on Matrix with what you can do and your fee (if any). +- // What about corporate sponsorship? (This would look bad and possibly BACKFIRE) +- // Could be used as proof of "work" for aspiring media contractors... (Do we have any aspiring authors?) +- **// Content creators, please drop me a message on Matrix with what you can do and your fee (if any). ## Execution -Award recipients will be nominated by our existing developers/contractors since no other group would have the required knowledge of which improvement protocols or ideas are useful. Award candidates and their corresponding IPs could be verified by everyone else during the "In Discussion" phase of the Politea process. It is expected there will be more than three award candidates. The final three candidates will be mentioned by name along with their contribution in the Politea proposal during the "Voting" phase of the Politea process. +Candidate Nomination +Award recipients will be nominated by our existing developers/contractors since they represent the group that would have the required knowledge of which improvement protocols or ideas are useful. This document will be sent to our developers/contractors in order to generate a list of nominees. The nomination period will last for 2 weeks after which the list will be published here. +- // need to decide on where to publish and make link. + +Nominee Ranking +Nominees and their corresponding IPs will be open to verification by the public during the "In Discussion" phase of the Politea process. It is expected the nomination phase will result in more than three nominees. For the moment, the binary outcomes from Politea will not allow us to perform any ranking directly through politea, therefore, the only rational choice is for the ranking to be done by our most trusted personnel, which would be Company Zero who would be asked to weigh in on opinions posted on Politea. All nominees would be ranked. // Should there be some scoring template e.g IP significance/"pro-decred-ism"/etc -- // Our contractors only need to identify the idea and author(s) involved so this should not take long. -- // Could just post the question on Matrix (I believe all contractors use Matrix...) -- // The problem would be who to choose if there are more than 3 candidates. Our devs should rank the importance of the contribution first and this could then be discussed on Politea. - // I think it would be reasonable to exclude candidates that are known to be openly hostile towards our project. - // **Draft of letter to be sent to developers (use dcrtime) - // **Draft of letter to recipients (use dcrtime) -Outreach to IP authors should be done by individuals well associated to the Decred community, ideally also a known entity on social media. Direct contact should be sought with the award recipients first followed by contact over social media channels if they agree to receive the award. Permission for a short video interview (30 minutes) would be sought. The reasons behind the award should also be stated explicitly. - -- // I'm thinking: Checkmate, richardred, Exitus, permabullnino, jz, ammarooni, svitekpavel [feel free to add your name here!] -- // They've not been approached yet! +Outreach Process +Once the nominees have been ranked, the outreach process will start. Outreach to IP authors will be done by individuals well associated to the Decred community, ideally also a known entity on social media. Direct contact should be sought with the award recipients first followed by contact over social media channels if they agree to receive the award. Permission for a short video interview (30 minutes) would be sought. The reasons behind the award should also be stated explicitly.. They will have 10 days to accept or decline from the time contact was made. If the nominees decline or if 10 days have elapsed, then the next nominee down the list will be contacted until the list is exhausted. +- // I'm thinking: Checkmate, richardred, Exitus, permabullnino, jz, ammarooni, svitekpavel <---none of them have been approached yet... +- //[feel free to add your name here!] -Since we would know who the reward recipients will be in advance of the recipients themselves, we should take the opportunity to prepare some media pieces for release. The topics to focus on should include: +Content Creation +Once 3 nominees have accepted the award or if the end of the list has been reached, we will move to secure funding for the content creation. +- // Is this a good method? Maybe better to secure funding for media first... +- // I'm thinking at least a podcast and 2 articles written up per award <-- comments? +- // My initial thoughts had been to prepare the articles ahead of time, but this could result in work that will not see the light of day and waste time. +The articles produced could focus on: - Reason the IP was published, the problem that it identifies and addresses - Any barriers faced in putting the idea forward, any pushback from the intended community - Any limitations of the original infrastructure (things that our DCPs address) that would have resulted in more seamless integration +- Any prior awareness of Decred and whether the authors knew their work had been incorporated. +- Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was obtained to promote our self-sovereign treasury and to distinguish it from how other cryptocurrency projects are funded. +Issues - // Who would be willing to write? Do we need to vet the documents? I would be happy to but I also realize to the community I am a reasonably unknown entity (by choice). - -Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was obtained to promote our self-sovereign treasury and to distinguish it from how other cryptocurrency projects are funded. - - // Obtaining expression of interest for social media personnel, interviewers, bloggers, etc. - // If they do this for a fee we might be perceived as just doing this as a PR stunt which may alienate the award winners... -## Issues - +## Possible Issues - Recipients may reject our reward or decline being interviewed. - We could still spin this in a good light e.g: still publicly acknowledge that a IP was incorporated into Decred because we agree it is a good proposal, how it can better Decred. - We can highlight how Decred seeks to incorporate sound ideas which may originate from other projects From e0587cf5e9fa9abe28f98ba8add1061f457d6c94 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lewildbeast Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 10:42:19 +1000 Subject: [PATCH 18/20] Update awards.md --- drafts/awards.md | 64 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) diff --git a/drafts/awards.md b/drafts/awards.md index fdd16e6..2d0d230 100644 --- a/drafts/awards.md +++ b/drafts/awards.md @@ -1,53 +1,56 @@ -## Executive Summary +## Abstract -This Politea proposal seeks approval in establishing an award for three individuals or parties with talent that may benefit the Decred project who are not currently directly contributing to Decred. It specifies an amount of 1500 DCR for 3 awards be set aside and accessed only if the follow up proposal on media costings for the awards is approved. Shoud the latter fail, or be unable to be produced without cost to the community, no funds will be taken out of the treasury. +This Politea proposal seeks approval in establishing an award for three individuals or parties with talent that may benefit the Decred project who are not currently directly contributing to Decred. It specifies a total amount of 1500 DCR spread equally between 3 awards be set aside. It is the first of three related proposals. The second proposal will deal with who the award will go to whilst the third will deal with the funding for content creation surrounding the award. ## Introduction -Improvement protocols are design documents for introducing new ideas or features into a project. For example, ["Bitcoin Improvement Protocol" (BIP) 32](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki) by Pieter Wuille introduced HD wallets into the Bitcoin ecosystem. This allowed for deterministic wallets to be interchanged between different clients or backed up through the use of seed words. Although not specifically designed for Decred, IPs like this example have been successfully integrated into Decred helping advance the Decred project. Other ideas which make their way into Decred may arise from research publications. For example ["P2P Mixing and Unlinkable Bitcoin Transaction"](https://decred.org/research/ruffing2016.pdf) by Ruffing, Moreno-Sanchez & Kate, form the basis of our privacy implementation. +Improvement protocols are design documents for introducing new ideas or features into a project. For example, ["Bitcoin Improvement Protocol" (BIP) 32](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki) by Pieter Wuille introduced HD wallets into the Bitcoin ecosystem. This allowed for deterministic wallets to be interchanged between different clients or backed up through the use of seed words. Although not specifically designed for Decred, IPs like this example have been successfully integrated into Decred helping advance the Decred project. Other ideas which make their way into Decred may arise from research publications. For example ["P2P Mixing and Unlinkable Bitcoin Transaction"](https://decred.org/research/ruffing2016.pdf) by Ruffing, Moreno-Sanchez & Kate, form the basis of our privacy implementation. The individuals or groups capable of developing IPs or publishing research at this calibre represent a small pool of individuals familiar with blockchain fundamentals who are motivated to improve the blockchain space. They may or may not be already affiliated with a blockchain project. It would be to our benefit that we attract such talent. I propose using a small portion of the treasury funds as an award for IP authors if their work has the potential to contribute to the advancement of Decred. I think 500 DCR per IP represents reasonable acknowledgement of their contribution(s). In the event an author has contributed more than 1 IP, only 1 award will be given out. I propose a total of 3 awards be given out as part of this proposal to limit cost and to test the feasibility of this idea. I expect the response from the authors will lie on a continuum from "Positive" to "Indifferent" with most feeling acknowledged and validated in some way. I would expect most of them to look into the source of the reward which may form the initial point of contact into Decred. Of course, not everybody that looks at Decred will be attracted to it; others, for political reasons or otherwise, may not want or be able to to publicly acknowledge Decred. Beyond that, there may be some that will seek to vilify this benevolent gift. -The secondary aims of this proposal are to highlight our treasury and governance system as well as generate positive attention from outside our community via the media release. By showing our collective capacity to acknowledge good ideas from everywhere in the crypto space and showing how they were incorporated into Decred, we can demonstrate maturity of thought and our capacity in making decisions that can move the project forward. In doing this, we will ultimately attract more users and developers into our community and strengthen it. +Besides recognizing contributors to our project, the secondary aims of this proposal are to highlight our treasury and governance system as well as generate positive attention from outside our community via the media release. By showing our collective capacity to acknowledge good ideas from everywhere in the crypto space and showing how they were incorporated into Decred, we can demonstrate maturity of thought and our capacity in making decisions that can move the project forward. In doing this, we will ultimately attract more users and developers into our community and strengthen it. -Media networks covering other projects must be tapped so that news about Decred can break outside the bounds of /r/decred and #decred. The award would be pointless if our community receives no benefit. The award should help break down crypto tribalism and build healthy relationships between our community and others. +To maximize the positivity surrounding the awards, media networks covering other projects should be tapped so that news about Decred can break outside the bounds of /r/decred and #decred. Utilizing treasury funds for an award would be pointless if our community receives no benefit from it. It is hoped that the award should help break down crypto tribalism and build healthy relationships between our community and others. -## Financial Considerations - -This proposal is only to seek approval from the Decred community to set aside 500 x 3 DCR to be used at the basis for the awards. This proposal is calculated and paid in DCR as it illustrates the global nature of this project and is also symbolic of our move away from fiat. As author of this proposal, I do not request payment and exclude myself from being a reward nominee or recipient to prevent any conflicts of interest arising. +In order to fit with the Politea framework, this proposal will be divided up into 3 stages: +- Establishing the award (This Proposal) +- Candidate nomination +- Content creation -Costings for media content creation will be factored into the subsequent proposal. It would be ideal if the media team does not request payment in terms of content creation as this may open up a vector for negative comments or criticisms from the outside since it may be perceived as profiteering from the award. However, the economics of the real world may make this impossible, hence the need for transparency and a follow up proposal in which I will detail the pricing for the required content creation in order to put it to vote. +## Financial Considerations -- // Perhaps they could be compensated by community donations (risky as there may be no donors...) -- // What about corporate sponsorship? (This would look bad and possibly BACKFIRE) -- // Could be used as proof of "work" for aspiring media contractors... (Do we have any aspiring authors?) -- **// Content creators, please drop me a message on Matrix with what you can do and your fee (if any). +This proposal is only to seek approval from the Decred community to set aside 500 x 3 DCR to be used at the basis for the awards. This proposal is calculated and paid in DCR as it illustrates the global nature of this project and is also symbolic of our move away from fiat. As author of this proposal, I do not request payment and exclude myself from being a reward nominee or recipient to prevent any conflicts of interest arising. No funds will be taken from the treasury until the second and third proposals pass. ## Execution +Once approval for the award in principle has been obtained, the next stage will be to nominate suitable candidates and ranking the nominees. -Candidate Nomination -Award recipients will be nominated by our existing developers/contractors since they represent the group that would have the required knowledge of which improvement protocols or ideas are useful. This document will be sent to our developers/contractors in order to generate a list of nominees. The nomination period will last for 2 weeks after which the list will be published here. -- // need to decide on where to publish and make link. +### NEXT PROPOSAL + +##Candidate Nomination +Award recipients will be nominated by our existing developers/contractors since they represent the group have the required knowledge of which improvement protocols or ideas were utilized. A standardized document (link to document, DCRTime hash) will be sent to our developers asking them for nominees for the award. The nomination period will last for 2 weeks after which the list will be published here (link to document). +// How to handle independent vs dev groups? i.e Do 10 devs working on 1 'project' get 10 votes or 1 vote? Nominee Ranking -Nominees and their corresponding IPs will be open to verification by the public during the "In Discussion" phase of the Politea process. It is expected the nomination phase will result in more than three nominees. For the moment, the binary outcomes from Politea will not allow us to perform any ranking directly through politea, therefore, the only rational choice is for the ranking to be done by our most trusted personnel, which would be Company Zero who would be asked to weigh in on opinions posted on Politea. All nominees would be ranked. // Should there be some scoring template e.g IP significance/"pro-decred-ism"/etc +Nominees and their corresponding IPs will be open to verification by the public. It is expected the nomination phase will result in more than three nominees. The preferred way to rank nominees will be to use the RFP process. However, if that system is unavailable for use, the only rational choice for ranking is that it be done by our developers using a point based system. Developers would not be permitted to rank their own candidates. I think it would be reasonable to exclude candidates that are known to be openly hostile towards our project as we do not want a situation where we are accused of trying to buy their approval. -- // I think it would be reasonable to exclude candidates that are known to be openly hostile towards our project. -- // **Draft of letter to be sent to developers (use dcrtime) -- // **Draft of letter to recipients (use dcrtime) +Once the top three nominees have been identified, they will be included in the voting phase of the politea proposal "Candidate Nomination" and the community will vote on whether to go ahead with the awards. +- // Should the complete rankings be made public if done by our developers? May lead to conflict, bad blood, hurt feelings and derail round 2 of awards if round 1 is successful... Outreach Process -Once the nominees have been ranked, the outreach process will start. Outreach to IP authors will be done by individuals well associated to the Decred community, ideally also a known entity on social media. Direct contact should be sought with the award recipients first followed by contact over social media channels if they agree to receive the award. Permission for a short video interview (30 minutes) would be sought. The reasons behind the award should also be stated explicitly.. They will have 10 days to accept or decline from the time contact was made. If the nominees decline or if 10 days have elapsed, then the next nominee down the list will be contacted until the list is exhausted. -- // I'm thinking: Checkmate, richardred, Exitus, permabullnino, jz, ammarooni, svitekpavel <---none of them have been approached yet... -- //[feel free to add your name here!] +Once the nominees have been ranked, the outreach process will start. Outreach to IP authors will be done by direct messaging through our official twitter channel first to see if they are agreeable to receive the award and consent to a 30 minute interview which will be largely centrered around their IP. The motivation behind the award will be stated explicitly. They will have 10 days to consider from the time contact was made. +- // Should this be done serially or concurrently? The benefit of the latter is time efficiency but with the possiblity of bruising egos -nominee number 5 for example being told they may receive an award but not actually receiving anything because there are only 3 awards... + +###Final Proposal Content Creation -Once 3 nominees have accepted the award or if the end of the list has been reached, we will move to secure funding for the content creation. +Once 3 nominees have accepted the award or if the end of the list has been reached, we will move to secure funding for the content creation. + +- // What happens if stage 1 and 2 reached but no funding approval for media? - // Is this a good method? Maybe better to secure funding for media first... - // I'm thinking at least a podcast and 2 articles written up per award <-- comments? -- // My initial thoughts had been to prepare the articles ahead of time, but this could result in work that will not see the light of day and waste time. +- // My initial thoughts had been to prepare the articles ahead of time, but this could result in work that will not see the light of day and waste time. The articles produced could focus on: - Reason the IP was published, the problem that it identifies and addresses @@ -56,26 +59,21 @@ The articles produced could focus on: - Any prior awareness of Decred and whether the authors knew their work had been incorporated. - Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was obtained to promote our self-sovereign treasury and to distinguish it from how other cryptocurrency projects are funded. -Issues -- // Who would be willing to write? Do we need to vet the documents? I would be happy to but I also realize to the community I am a reasonably unknown entity (by choice). +## Possible Issues +- // Who would be willing to write? Do we need to vet the documents? I would be happy to but I also realize to the community I am a reasonably unknown entity (by choice) and there are others who write better than I do! - // Obtaining expression of interest for social media personnel, interviewers, bloggers, etc. - // If they do this for a fee we might be perceived as just doing this as a PR stunt which may alienate the award winners... - -## Possible Issues - Recipients may reject our reward or decline being interviewed. - We could still spin this in a good light e.g: still publicly acknowledge that a IP was incorporated into Decred because we agree it is a good proposal, how it can better Decred. - We can highlight how Decred seeks to incorporate sound ideas which may originate from other projects - - What form the reward should take? - A tacky trophy? Giant paper wallet? Honorary contractor giant "cheque"? - Something more technical (to illustrate something decred specific would be ideal)... - Artwork or something that could be anchored into DCRTime (allowing us to show off DCRTime...) - Could we tie this into the launch of the DEX somehow? - - Someway to tie into DCRTime... + - Someway to tie into DCRTime... - We should also give out some testnet DCR, a 1:1 DCR:tDCR would be aesthetically pleasing. - - If this is successful, should it continue or be a one-off affair? - - COULD THE MEDIA PUBLICITY BACKFIRE? **INTERESTED IN HELPING OUT, PLEASE ADD YOUR DETAILS BELOW** From cf948e9c8e802219a51d2fbd42daf677a45cce30 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lewildbeast Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 20:42:03 +1000 Subject: [PATCH 19/20] Update awards.md --- drafts/awards.md | 68 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------- 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-) diff --git a/drafts/awards.md b/drafts/awards.md index 2d0d230..52429e3 100644 --- a/drafts/awards.md +++ b/drafts/awards.md @@ -1,56 +1,59 @@ ## Abstract -This Politea proposal seeks approval in establishing an award for three individuals or parties with talent that may benefit the Decred project who are not currently directly contributing to Decred. It specifies a total amount of 1500 DCR spread equally between 3 awards be set aside. It is the first of three related proposals. The second proposal will deal with who the award will go to whilst the third will deal with the funding for content creation surrounding the award. +This Politea proposal seeks approval to establishing an award for three individuals or parties with talent that may benefit the Decred project who are not currently directly contributing to Decred. It specifies a total amount of 1500 DCR spread equally between 3 awards be set aside. It is the first of three related proposals. The second proposal will deal with who the awards will go to and the third proposal will deal with the funding for content creation surrounding the award. +> - Need estimate for content creation. @Richard-Red ## Introduction Improvement protocols are design documents for introducing new ideas or features into a project. For example, ["Bitcoin Improvement Protocol" (BIP) 32](https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0032.mediawiki) by Pieter Wuille introduced HD wallets into the Bitcoin ecosystem. This allowed for deterministic wallets to be interchanged between different clients or backed up through the use of seed words. Although not specifically designed for Decred, IPs like this example have been successfully integrated into Decred helping advance the Decred project. Other ideas which make their way into Decred may arise from research publications. For example ["P2P Mixing and Unlinkable Bitcoin Transaction"](https://decred.org/research/ruffing2016.pdf) by Ruffing, Moreno-Sanchez & Kate, form the basis of our privacy implementation. -The individuals or groups capable of developing IPs or publishing research at this calibre represent a small pool of individuals familiar with blockchain fundamentals who are motivated to improve the blockchain space. They may or may not be already affiliated with a blockchain project. It would be to our benefit that we attract such talent. I propose using a small portion of the treasury funds as an award for IP authors if their work has the potential to contribute to the advancement of Decred. I think 500 DCR per IP represents reasonable acknowledgement of their contribution(s). In the event an author has contributed more than 1 IP, only 1 award will be given out. I propose a total of 3 awards be given out as part of this proposal to limit cost and to test the feasibility of this idea. +The individuals or groups capable of developing IPs or publishing research at this calibre represent a small pool of individuals familiar with blockchain fundamentals who are motivated to improve the blockchain space. They may or may not be already affiliated with a blockchain project. It would be to our benefit that we attract such talent. I propose using a small portion of the treasury funds as an award for IP authors if their work has the potential to contribute to the advancement of Decred. I think 500 DCR per IP represents reasonable acknowledgement of their contribution(s). In the event an author has contributed more than 1 IP, only 1 award will be given out. I propose a total of 3 awards be given out as part of this series of proposals to limit cost and to test the feasibility of the idea. If successful, we can always hand out more awards. -I expect the response from the authors will lie on a continuum from "Positive" to "Indifferent" with most feeling acknowledged and validated in some way. I would expect most of them to look into the source of the reward which may form the initial point of contact into Decred. Of course, not everybody that looks at Decred will be attracted to it; others, for political reasons or otherwise, may not want or be able to to publicly acknowledge Decred. Beyond that, there may be some that will seek to vilify this benevolent gift. +In order to utilize the Politea framework, this "meta-proposal" will consist of 3 stages: +1. Establishing the award (**this** proposal) +2. Candidate nomination (*next* proposal) +3. Content creation (*final* proposal) -Besides recognizing contributors to our project, the secondary aims of this proposal are to highlight our treasury and governance system as well as generate positive attention from outside our community via the media release. By showing our collective capacity to acknowledge good ideas from everywhere in the crypto space and showing how they were incorporated into Decred, we can demonstrate maturity of thought and our capacity in making decisions that can move the project forward. In doing this, we will ultimately attract more users and developers into our community and strengthen it. +I expect the response from the authors will lie on a continuum from "Positive" to "Indifferent" with most feeling acknowledged and validated in some way. I would expect most of them to look into the source of the reward which may form the initial point of contact into Decred. Of course, not everybody that looks at Decred will be attracted to it; others, for political reasons or otherwise, may not want or be able to to publicly acknowledge Decred. Beyond that, there may be some that will seek to vilify this benevolent gift. -To maximize the positivity surrounding the awards, media networks covering other projects should be tapped so that news about Decred can break outside the bounds of /r/decred and #decred. Utilizing treasury funds for an award would be pointless if our community receives no benefit from it. It is hoped that the award should help break down crypto tribalism and build healthy relationships between our community and others. +Besides recognizing contributors to our project, the secondary aims of this proposal are to highlight our treasury and governance system as well as generate positive attention from outside our community via the media release - this is addressed in the third proposal, content creation. By showing our collective capacity to acknowledge good ideas from everywhere in the crypto space and showing how they were incorporated into Decred, we can demonstrate maturity of thought and our capacity in making decisions that can move the project forward. In doing this, we will ultimately attract more users and developers into our community and strengthen it. -In order to fit with the Politea framework, this proposal will be divided up into 3 stages: -- Establishing the award (This Proposal) -- Candidate nomination -- Content creation +To maximize the positivity surrounding the awards, media networks covering other projects should be tapped so that news about Decred can break outside the bounds of **/r/decred** and **#decred**. Utilizing treasury funds for an award would be pointless if our community receives no benefit from it. It is hoped that the award should help break down crypto tribalism and build healthy relationships between our community and others. -## Financial Considerations +## This Proposal - Establishing the award -This proposal is only to seek approval from the Decred community to set aside 500 x 3 DCR to be used at the basis for the awards. This proposal is calculated and paid in DCR as it illustrates the global nature of this project and is also symbolic of our move away from fiat. As author of this proposal, I do not request payment and exclude myself from being a reward nominee or recipient to prevent any conflicts of interest arising. No funds will be taken from the treasury until the second and third proposals pass. +This first proposal, **Establishing the Award**, is to seek community approval to set aside 1500 DCR + 300 USD to be used at the basis of the awards. The community will vote on whether they agree in principle for the award. No funds will leave the treasury. -## Execution -Once approval for the award in principle has been obtained, the next stage will be to nominate suitable candidates and ranking the nominees. +## Candidate Nomination +The second proposal, **Candidate Nomination**, is to tie the award previously voted for to the top three nominees, secure community approval to commit the funds to the nominees and to set the stage for the third and final proposal, **Content Creation**. Funds will only be debited from the treasury on completion of all three proposals. +> // Factored in cost of the actual award itself, the award itself should cost less than 100 USD each and should be crypto/Decred focused. -### NEXT PROPOSAL +Candidate nomination will begin if the first proposal to establish the award passes. As author of this proposal, I do not request payment and exclude myself from being a candidate or benificiary of these awards, directly or indirectly, to prevent any conflicts of interest arising. Should the first proposal fail to pass, the subsequent two proposals will be abandoned and not brought to vote. -##Candidate Nomination -Award recipients will be nominated by our existing developers/contractors since they represent the group have the required knowledge of which improvement protocols or ideas were utilized. A standardized document (link to document, DCRTime hash) will be sent to our developers asking them for nominees for the award. The nomination period will last for 2 weeks after which the list will be published here (link to document). -// How to handle independent vs dev groups? i.e Do 10 devs working on 1 'project' get 10 votes or 1 vote? +Award recipients will be nominated by our existing developers/contractors since they represent the group have the required knowledge of which improvement protocols or ideas were utilized. A [standardized document](https://bla.bla.bla) (DCRTime hash: 123456abcdef) will be sent to our developers asking them for nominees for the award. The nomination period will last for 2 weeks after which the list will be published [here](https://bla.bla.bla). +> // How to handle independent vs dev groups? i.e Do 10 devs working on 1 'project' get 10 votes or 1 vote? -Nominee Ranking -Nominees and their corresponding IPs will be open to verification by the public. It is expected the nomination phase will result in more than three nominees. The preferred way to rank nominees will be to use the RFP process. However, if that system is unavailable for use, the only rational choice for ranking is that it be done by our developers using a point based system. Developers would not be permitted to rank their own candidates. I think it would be reasonable to exclude candidates that are known to be openly hostile towards our project as we do not want a situation where we are accused of trying to buy their approval. +# Nominee Ranking +Nominees and their corresponding IPs will be open to verification by the public. It is expected the nomination phase will result in more than three nominees. The preferred way to rank nominees will be to use the RFP process ([example here](https://test-proposals.decred.org/proposals/0de5bd8)). Candidates will be ranked by the community based on the 'yes/no' ratios since Politea only has support for binary outcomes at this point of time. However, if that system is unavailable for use, the only rasonable choice left for ranking is that it be done by our developers using a point based system, this would be less than ideal as there are multiple sources of bias. Developers would not be permitted to rank their own candidates. I think it would be reasonable to exclude candidates that are known to be openly hostile towards our project as we do not want a situation where we are accused of trying to buy their approval. Once the top three nominees have been identified, they will be included in the voting phase of the politea proposal "Candidate Nomination" and the community will vote on whether to go ahead with the awards. -- // Should the complete rankings be made public if done by our developers? May lead to conflict, bad blood, hurt feelings and derail round 2 of awards if round 1 is successful... +> // Should the complete rankings be made public if done by our developers? May lead to conflict, bad blood, hurt feelings and derail round 2 of awards if round 1 is successful... -Outreach Process +### Outreach Process Once the nominees have been ranked, the outreach process will start. Outreach to IP authors will be done by direct messaging through our official twitter channel first to see if they are agreeable to receive the award and consent to a 30 minute interview which will be largely centrered around their IP. The motivation behind the award will be stated explicitly. They will have 10 days to consider from the time contact was made. -- // Should this be done serially or concurrently? The benefit of the latter is time efficiency but with the possiblity of bruising egos -nominee number 5 for example being told they may receive an award but not actually receiving anything because there are only 3 awards... -###Final Proposal +> // Should this be done serially or concurrently? The benefit of the latter is time efficiency but with the possiblity of bruising egos -nominee number 4 for example being told they may receive an award but not actually receiving anything because there are only 3 awards... -Content Creation +# Content Creation Proposal + +### Content Creation Once 3 nominees have accepted the award or if the end of the list has been reached, we will move to secure funding for the content creation. -- // What happens if stage 1 and 2 reached but no funding approval for media? -- // Is this a good method? Maybe better to secure funding for media first... -- // I'm thinking at least a podcast and 2 articles written up per award <-- comments? -- // My initial thoughts had been to prepare the articles ahead of time, but this could result in work that will not see the light of day and waste time. +>- // What happens if stage 1 and 2 reached but no funding approval for media? +- // Can our PR team help out here? +-// Is this a good method? Maybe better to secure funding for media first... +-// I'm thinking at least a podcast and 2 articles written up per award <-- comments? +-// My initial thoughts had been to prepare the articles ahead of time, but this could result in work that will not see the light of day and waste time. The articles produced could focus on: - Reason the IP was published, the problem that it identifies and addresses @@ -59,10 +62,11 @@ The articles produced could focus on: - Any prior awareness of Decred and whether the authors knew their work had been incorporated. - Our media pieces should also take the opportunity to highlight how funding was obtained to promote our self-sovereign treasury and to distinguish it from how other cryptocurrency projects are funded. -## Possible Issues -- // Who would be willing to write? Do we need to vet the documents? I would be happy to but I also realize to the community I am a reasonably unknown entity (by choice) and there are others who write better than I do! -- // Obtaining expression of interest for social media personnel, interviewers, bloggers, etc. -- // If they do this for a fee we might be perceived as just doing this as a PR stunt which may alienate the award winners... +# Possible Issues + +>-Who would be willing to write? Do we need to vet the documents? I would be happy to but I also realize to the community I am a reasonably unknown entity (by choice) and there are others who write better than I do! +- Obtaining expression of interest for social media personnel, interviewers, bloggers, etc. +- If they do this for a fee we might be perceived as just doing this as a PR stunt which may alienate the award winners... - Recipients may reject our reward or decline being interviewed. - We could still spin this in a good light e.g: still publicly acknowledge that a IP was incorporated into Decred because we agree it is a good proposal, how it can better Decred. - We can highlight how Decred seeks to incorporate sound ideas which may originate from other projects From 50461fa5e83b9b7412163268fb833d5463636f12 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: lewildbeast Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2020 20:50:01 +1000 Subject: [PATCH 20/20] Update awards.md --- drafts/awards.md | 19 ++++++++++--------- 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) diff --git a/drafts/awards.md b/drafts/awards.md index 52429e3..540dd9c 100644 --- a/drafts/awards.md +++ b/drafts/awards.md @@ -1,7 +1,7 @@ ## Abstract This Politea proposal seeks approval to establishing an award for three individuals or parties with talent that may benefit the Decred project who are not currently directly contributing to Decred. It specifies a total amount of 1500 DCR spread equally between 3 awards be set aside. It is the first of three related proposals. The second proposal will deal with who the awards will go to and the third proposal will deal with the funding for content creation surrounding the award. -> - Need estimate for content creation. @Richard-Red +> - Need estimate for content creation. @Richard-Red @PR team ## Introduction @@ -24,9 +24,10 @@ To maximize the positivity surrounding the awards, media networks covering other This first proposal, **Establishing the Award**, is to seek community approval to set aside 1500 DCR + 300 USD to be used at the basis of the awards. The community will vote on whether they agree in principle for the award. No funds will leave the treasury. + ## Candidate Nomination The second proposal, **Candidate Nomination**, is to tie the award previously voted for to the top three nominees, secure community approval to commit the funds to the nominees and to set the stage for the third and final proposal, **Content Creation**. Funds will only be debited from the treasury on completion of all three proposals. -> // Factored in cost of the actual award itself, the award itself should cost less than 100 USD each and should be crypto/Decred focused. +> // Factored in cost of the actual award itself, the award itself should cost less than 100 USD each and should be crypto/Decred focused. We should also include some Testnet DCR with the award, a numerically identical amount looks best. Candidate nomination will begin if the first proposal to establish the award passes. As author of this proposal, I do not request payment and exclude myself from being a candidate or benificiary of these awards, directly or indirectly, to prevent any conflicts of interest arising. Should the first proposal fail to pass, the subsequent two proposals will be abandoned and not brought to vote. @@ -36,7 +37,7 @@ Award recipients will be nominated by our existing developers/contractors since # Nominee Ranking Nominees and their corresponding IPs will be open to verification by the public. It is expected the nomination phase will result in more than three nominees. The preferred way to rank nominees will be to use the RFP process ([example here](https://test-proposals.decred.org/proposals/0de5bd8)). Candidates will be ranked by the community based on the 'yes/no' ratios since Politea only has support for binary outcomes at this point of time. However, if that system is unavailable for use, the only rasonable choice left for ranking is that it be done by our developers using a point based system, this would be less than ideal as there are multiple sources of bias. Developers would not be permitted to rank their own candidates. I think it would be reasonable to exclude candidates that are known to be openly hostile towards our project as we do not want a situation where we are accused of trying to buy their approval. -Once the top three nominees have been identified, they will be included in the voting phase of the politea proposal "Candidate Nomination" and the community will vote on whether to go ahead with the awards. +Once the top three nominees have been identified, they will be included in the voting phase of the politea proposal "Candidate Nomination" and the community will vote on whether to go ahead with the awards. > // Should the complete rankings be made public if done by our developers? May lead to conflict, bad blood, hurt feelings and derail round 2 of awards if round 1 is successful... ### Outreach Process @@ -49,11 +50,11 @@ Once the nominees have been ranked, the outreach process will start. Outreach to ### Content Creation Once 3 nominees have accepted the award or if the end of the list has been reached, we will move to secure funding for the content creation. ->- // What happens if stage 1 and 2 reached but no funding approval for media? -- // Can our PR team help out here? --// Is this a good method? Maybe better to secure funding for media first... --// I'm thinking at least a podcast and 2 articles written up per award <-- comments? --// My initial thoughts had been to prepare the articles ahead of time, but this could result in work that will not see the light of day and waste time. +> // What happens if stage 1 and 2 reached but no funding approval for media? +// Can our PR team help out here? +// Is this a good method? Maybe better to secure funding for media first... +// I'm thinking at least a podcast and 2 articles written up per award <-- comments? +// My initial thoughts had been to prepare the articles ahead of time, but this could result in work that will not see the light of day and waste time. The articles produced could focus on: - Reason the IP was published, the problem that it identifies and addresses @@ -64,7 +65,7 @@ The articles produced could focus on: # Possible Issues ->-Who would be willing to write? Do we need to vet the documents? I would be happy to but I also realize to the community I am a reasonably unknown entity (by choice) and there are others who write better than I do! +>Who would be willing to write? Do we need to vet the documents? I would be happy to but I also realize to the community I am a reasonably unknown entity (by choice) and there are others who write better than I do! - Obtaining expression of interest for social media personnel, interviewers, bloggers, etc. - If they do this for a fee we might be perceived as just doing this as a PR stunt which may alienate the award winners... - Recipients may reject our reward or decline being interviewed.