@mhluongo, so the Foundation would be allowed to make those “50% outside devs” funds be deliverable-driven grants/contracts? Well that changes the calculus [1], and allays that concern of mine (and the past grant view committees…). But then, going back to my original question — it becomes unclear what’s the difference between the 25% grants and the 50% “outside devs” funding.
More importantly, I’m still struggling to see a satisfying answer to the following. Consider the following possible scenario:
- ZEC stays around the current price, so about $600k/month (75%) are available to the “big” developers.
- ECC gets just $200k/month and is starved, but cannot be broken up (yes, you think it can be; based on deep familiarity, I disagree).
- Not enough good new teams show up with good proposals to use $400k/month (at a level of efficiency close to ECC).
Then what? Do we waste the Dev Fund on bad teams, or burn it, or save it for later? While ECC is forced to fire most of its employees and halt most development and outreach?
I’m especially worried about this scenario because it’s not a remote hypothetical; it’s the default if your proposal is implemented.
[1] Could you please clarify this point in your proposal? As well as adding “development” to the list of things the Foundation can do with its 25%?
(To be clear, I don’t mean to imply anything about your team. I have no idea what’s your team, and even assuming it’s wonderful, whether it can productively use $400k/month.)