Appreciate the work you are doing on YWallet @hanh. It has held up well through the recent spam challenges and I enjoy using it.
I’m not an expert whatsoever on being able to price software development. However, I do have this feeling in my gut that the value brought by a wallet that actually uses a single user facing UA across pools, can survive spam attacks, has lots of other features, and consistently works will more likely than not be worth as much or more than the current price tag.
In addition, I have a feeling that alienating or discouraging the developer of the best working mobile wallet would be much more detrimental in the long run than paying the ~$50,000 difference between $100 or $220 per hour rate for the grant in question. Furthermore, in general, I don’t necessarily see how a $100 flat rate for all developers (or a flat fee for any type of skill) is the best way to go. Some people are just more efficient or valuable per unit time than others, not much other way to reflect that than in the dollar per unit time figure…
I know the job of evaluating all the grants and trying to fairly allocate resources is not an easy one, but I really hope that we can continue on our way to improving Ywallet to become more and more user-friendly (which is of the utmost priority for all Zcash products in general) and certainly simplified UA/Orchard support is a way to get to this important goal.
Commenting as myself and not on behalf of the rest of zcg committee:
To be clear, all development of Ywallet to date has been funded at the average developer rate of $100/hr. This was the purpose of the retroactive funding. The 100/hr rate is an average and different projects and roles can be higher or lower. A few projects have been highlighted in this thread that are higher, and each was evaluated at the time it was presented. It is entirely possible Ywallet can be funded at a higher rate with good justification. Ywallet is a great application, prior to the retroactive funding all of its features were developed at $0/hr. Now as new features come, the rate is 2.2x higher than was funded last month. On the $114,400 grant; the amount asked is $62,400 higher than the $52,000 it would have been if included with the retroactive; this is non-trivial. Why was the previous rate acceptable in September and not now?
ZCG is currently funding 4 wallet implementations and ZCG funding will very likely disappear at the end of zip-1014. It would be a tragic end to Zcash if all projects funded by ZCG turn out to be unsustainable and couldn’t benefit the ecosystem on their own. It is my expectation these projects find a way to either: self-monetize, find additional sources of funding (grants & donations), or transition to all volunteer development efforts (which Ywallet has historically done).
Are any efforts being made to find other sources of funding for Ywallet or is it correct to assume development will be abandoned if it is not funded by ZCG?
Because I didn’t base the pricing of YWallet retroactive grant on an hourly rate. As a matter of fact, my grant proposal does not mention an hourly rate. In my opinion, it should have been higher but I also wanted to give a package “discount”. Orchard/UA was not included because it represents a lot of new code development that is specific to Zcash.
I expect the best wallet to continue to exist through donations, DAO, grants, etc. And I hope this wallet is YWallet.
I’m confused here - why is extending the fastest wallet being nickel & dimed?
It’s not that much money, its going to someone with an excellent track record of delivering, and the whole point of these grants is to encourage external developers.
Is it still politically inconvenient that Ywallet is fast & survived the spam when all others died…or have we got over that?
A fast reliable wallet is vital, just fund it.
Because gathering community feedback and acknowledgement before funding a project asking for a higher than an average rate is a good practice imho. I appreciate all of the comments in this thread because it helps give voice to the community and makes the process feel more authentic than debating everything that comes through in private.
I think there is room for all forms of communication - public, private, semi-public. The main goal in regards to communication should be trying to reach understanding between applicant, grants committee, and community. Sometimes private talks are good for that, sometimes public talks are good for that, etc. Informed debate and decisions can only be made on a foundation of understanding/facts. So I am appreciative of @dontpanicburns effort to ask questions and @hanh’s honest answers, as well the efforts you all have made in other meetings.
From what I can tell, it seems that a strong wallet that works all the time is such a high priority in the community, combined with the fact that @hanh is not an “unknown” quantity and will very likely deliver exactly what is promised in regards to UA/Orchard implementation, that people are very comfortable with the rates he quotes. In addition, there are other features promised beside just UA/Orchard in Ywallet - getting the warp sync algorithm working for Orchard also seems like a big plus. DAG-sync from ECC may represent a boon to wallets that rely on ECC’s SDK, but there is also the possibility that warp sync may be better than DAG-sync (I haven’t seen a solid apples to apples comparison between the two). Or at the very least, it may be prudent to continue to support complementary syncing software development to increase diversity and resilience in case one falls behind or one team must be forced to pivot to other problems.
(As an aside, it seems reallyyy hard to be able to estimate how many hours it may take for any complicated project. Most budget estimates are exactly that - estimates. This is one of the reasons why many jobs are based on salary - at a certain point the job becomes too sprawling to be able to do on a per-project basis. Estimates are really hard to make accurately IMO and a lot of it comes down to trust. Trust that the applicant is making an honest effort to estimate their hours and trust that they have the competence to get the job done as best they can. Of course, there are also additional factors like competition - are there two bids to do the exact same thing with an equal likelihood of success? In that case a “bidding war” to get costs lower may occur. And while ZCG is funding 4 different wallets at the moment, I don’t think they are all promising the same thing, and I think seed funding different wallet teams is necessary to give people a chance to see different wallets in action, which would help make informed decisions about future funding for the different teams. Also, there is something to be said for diversity in perhaps the most critical product Zcash has to offer - user facing shielded wallets. What happens if one has a critical bug or one team gets pulled away for some reason? I applaud ZCG for funding these different wallet efforts, I don’t see it as wasteful.)
Lastly, I know how hard text-based, asynchronous, and public communication can be when trying to discuss something as personal as how “valuable” someone is. While we can all try to hold ourselves to a high standard of polite discourse, it is nonetheless a touchy subject that I would urge all involved to handle gracefully (in general, not saying anything is amiss here). It is also the sort of thing that I think could make use of private discussions between applicant and grants committee as text-based communication can leave out a lot of context and the asynchronous component can leave parties stewing about forum posts for hours or days whereas a phone call can consolidate the effort the discussion requires to a single event, while still allowing public review and input before final decisions are made.
Thanks for reading the long post, I hope some stuff in there is useful
One question, will this Orchard implementation exclusive for Zcash in Ywallet? Or is there any plan to also add Orchard for Ycash, assuming Ycash folks have intention to adopt Orchard. If so, what about Orchard licensing in regards to its use by an old Zcash fork?
Asking because I haven’t see any plan by @hanh to build a Zcash-specific wallet.
exclusive specific to zcash. Ycash has no plans to add Orchard. @hloo, please correct me if I am wrong.
Edit: Specific may be a better word than exclusive.
That is correct: Currently there are no plans to add Orchard to Ycash.
I can’t wait to have “one UA to rule them all”!
Thanks to @ZcashGrants and community for supporting this grant. I am looking forward to adding UA and Orchard to YWallet!
is this a technical decision, a matter of licensing restriction, or a lack funds or developer know-how/ interest to make it happen?
how is ycash these days? what have you learned through the friendly fork experiment?
have any thoughts regarding UA/orchard coming to ywallet, and how that may bode for YEC?
Is this only for the mobile wallet? Also was the update 1.2.15 and 1.2.16 only for mobiles? The website still lists 1.2.14 as the most recent.
This is for a private testing program. The final version will be released next year only.
Join the Google Group Ywallet. It has more info and access to the binaries.