If this prop passes, I will donate my entire portion to @outgoing.doze. He deserves it.
2 Likes
If this prop passes, I will donate my entire portion back to the dev fund. Itâs where it belongs.
Looking forward to a proper documentation to run a verifying node, and a proper proposal giving a stipend to those running those verifying nodes.
Iâm thinking we allocate USD$1000 per voting session. We then welcome anyone to join. All of the nodes that have ran the verifying nodes successfully to the end get to share the USD$1000. I think we can get at least 10 people that way.
Out of curiousity, whoâs job is that? The folks running them or the the creator of the system? You continue to think this job is easy, which its not. Maybe next round you can run as coordinator and discover the truth. The docs we used are all in the githubs, if you cared to look.
The job described by this proposal is easy, I confirm.
If we need someone to work on documentation, Iâm happy to support the initiative and compensate that person fairly through a retroactive grant.
Really? Awful, just awful.
I am in this proposal, getting paid absurd amount of moneys, remember? I did the work and it was barely an hour of my time. Thatâs what this proposal is about: Voting Authorities.
If we need to compensate other positions, such as Voting Coordinator, we can certainly do that as well. Specify the task, the amount of time this represents, and the financial compensation for it. Also, a process to enable a rotation of that role, so should this person vanish, multiple people will be familiar with the duty.
Its all inclusive, but I guess yall need to spell out each hour of our time to the tee? Cmon. Look, this is a RETRO grant, we already did the work. This kind of hounding isnt worth ANY money.
@outgoing.doze @ 14 days = $3500
1h of âworkâ for $3500 is not âto the teeâ, itâs complete non-sense.
We shall have higher standards @dismad . This proposal sets a bad precedent. Do better.
I had to guess amounts and hours, considering it was ad hoc work. I guess my estimate was wrong in your eyes. I could have also removed you from the list; maybe that would have worked better for you? I was trying to be fair, but if we must split hairs on this small amount of ZEC, than I will try and improve my estimates.
Bottom line, telling me âyour idea was to get a big paydayâ is disrespectful, and I wonât let it stand. I donât want the money; you can keep it.
Keep in mind the community is watching your behaviour and might just make our new retro grant less desirable considering this abuse.
Youâd have found yourself in a pickle anyway.
Any Retroactive Grant request, big or small, should be quality oriented. Your wild, undocumented approximations, are not what I want to see personally. Maybe itâs just me.
Thatâs what this proposal is making it look to me, so I told you just that. I did almost nothing and I get USD$3500? What is that telling us about your USD$8000? Iâm not saying you have not worked hard, I have no idea. Whatâs for sure is that this grant is for Voting Authorities and thatâs not supposed to be a big job.
What do you mean âkeep itâ. I donât hold it. I never asked for it. Iâm literally doing my best so I donât get my share. Why would I ever want yours? What are you even talking about @dismad at this point?
Retract and do better.
I will retract nothing. The work was done, the community benefited, and Iâm happy I got the chance to run this. We disagree on costs, and I dont like your accusations.
In the first election, you were given the final deployment package and you just had to run it. Other participants didnât have the same experience.
In the current election, we have 9 parallel elections and 5 participants. The process is more involved.
The instructions are here: GitHub - hhanh00/zcash-vote-docker
It was quite painful but we learned one major thing. As the number of elections and participants increase, the chances of messing up something increase even quicker. Therefore next time, I will automate further and develop custom tools. Eventually, it will be a smooth brainless process.
But I think you under estimate the complexity and coordination required for setting up a private blockchain with the standard cometbft tools.
PS: I am not supporting or against this retro grant. I just want to clarify that you and dismad may not have the same perspective.
2 Likes
Mainly Iâm trying to make sure that we have a very clear split between the Voting Authorities stipend and any other work related to Retroactive Grants.
The credibility of this proposal is toast anyway. Iâm receiving USD$3500 for doing almost nothing.
I donât mind/care to pay for any work done to get this voting off the ground, quite the opposite. But âVoting Authoritiesâ is going to be a critical role and we should very much define the rules, set the right expectation asap, and not throw everything in the same basket.
Personally, I think that the validators should put a stake. If they misbehave, they get slashed.
We rely on a super quorum (>2/3) of well behaved validators, so we canât accept just anyone.
1 Like
I was thinking along the same lines, just not sure how difficult it would be to implement. Weâre on the same page.
Correct.
Agree 
@hanh you have been extra helpful supporting both me and the other vote auths, I deeply appreciate your time. Hahn did extra âoffice hoursâ with me to help on multiple occasions.
Can you expand on this? All the work we did was directly related to setting up the vote auths. If we didnt figure this out, the vote would have been delayed, effecting the whole retro active process.
- Retroactive grant A: Voting Authorities (this one here)
- Retroactive grant B: Creation of the voting platform and documentation and initial support (not this one here)
A is about what is going to be compensated every time there is a vote, to compensate those running the nodes to secure it. This is going to be a very important one going forward.
B is about development / documentation to get us something working and stable. This should be a one time thing.
1 Like
I honestly didnât think about the first part much, fair point. I was much more focused on the work we did ( part b ). Hopefully we/I can use this as a learning experience.
I will support your grant if you make this separation clear, the USD$8000 seems reasonable for the work I now understand you did.
Btw, please consider having a chatroom open (read-only would be fine for people not Voting Authorities) to anyone when you organize the voting.
1 Like
Total runway (ZCG + Lockbox) is ZEC381,860, roughly $220M, that is 18 years at current burn.
Future authority compensation: $500 flat stipend set before the election + public timesheet.
Scope and pay locked up front.
That is the only repeatable process.
1 Like