Date: T
Amount: 100000 ALGO
Description: We require half of the funds to be prepaid, so that we can pay salaries for developers
Milestone 2 - Smart contract delivery
Date: T + 3 months
Amount: 200000 ALGO
Milestone 3 - Integration to DEX aggregator
Date: T + 6 months
Amount: 200000 ALGO
According to ARC34 you are only allowed to submit a request for one milestone per xgov period
Milestone-based grants must submit a proposal for one milestone at a time.
and you are only allowed to apply for the next milestone after the one prior has passed
Once a milestone is achieved, the team must submit a proposal for the next milestone, including ways for xGovs to verify that the milestone is completed.
The issue at hand is that Ludovit has now applied for milestone 3 of the proposal. I do not understand how this is possible, as he never applied for milestone 2, and he has not submitted finished work for neither milestone 1 or milestone 2.
I don’t think it should be OK for people to just make up their own rules for how proposals in xgov should work. If everyone had their own ideas and wrote them it’d be chaos. If this is how xgov will work, can I just put a “This proposal only require 10% of votes needed to pass”? The ARC is there for a reason, and I don’t think we should allow anyone to just do whatever suits them best. If the process is bad we should of course change it, but that’s not what has happened here.
I would love some clarification on this topic from AF, as I think it’s a very serious matter that affects the fundamentals of xgov.
Please consider this a formal community request to hold payment on #80 Milestone 2 and also hold payment on #163 (which represents Milestone 3 of #80), should it pass in Session 3, until the following conditions are met:
Ludovit Scholtz provides a clear written description of how the delivery of Milestone 2 and Milestone 3 can be verified by the community.
Ludovit Scholtz posts evidence on this forum of having delivered what is described for the corresponding Milestone.
At least 14 calendar days have passed from the date the evidence of the Milestone delivery has been posted without further complaint by a community member on this forum about the delivery being unsatisfactory, or, if 14 days have passed and there are complaints, the Algorand Foundation finds that Mr. Scholtz has satisfactorily addressed all issues raised in comments on his milestone delivery evidence posts.
I think software proposals should include a list of software requirements. Having a list of software requirements is standard practice in many software shops. xGovs would have a better idea of what they are voting for and makes it easier to verify if the software was delivered as proposed.
We had this discussion on the discord and I will just repeat my points.
We were asked to split the proposals on 3 months milestones
AF has not done the prepayment, so not even milestone 1 has been met. Perhaps if AF would execute it right after the voting session this would not be a topic right now.
xGov is in the pilot phase and the arc is modified too many times. it is not strict rules. the strict rules i consider the implementation of the xgov process and legal documents, so in your example the proposal would not be passed
Mainly the grants process cannot work the way that big projects propose something, wait 4 months on experts to vote for it and accept it, then wait next 3 months for the legal documents are finalied, then work 3 months, then wait for next submission window, hope that the xgovs will approve next milestone , wait for next 3 months for legal documents to be finalized and work on milestone 2.
I want to see continuos financing so that after 3 months, the teams does not have to collapse for 6 months and then join again for 3 months…
Sure, i am in favor for this. Lets put into the proposals template also other important sections so that every proposal is not marked final if it does not have any required information missing.
The delivery mechanism for the #80 is the link to github. Link will be specified when times comes.
We were asked to split the proposals on 3 months milestones
No one forced you to do this. They can ask, but the ARC does not specify that you have to. But did you even read the ARC before you split it? It really seems like you didn’t.
AF has not done the prepayment, so not even milestone 1 has been met. Perhaps if AF would execute it right after the voting session this would not be a topic right now.
I don’t get how this is relevant. The ARC says what it says wheter or not the the foundation has paid you.
xGov is in the pilot phase and the arc is modified too many times. it is not strict rules. the strict rules i consider the implementation of the xgov process and legal documents, so in your example the proposal would not be passed
Why are you the one to decide this? I don’t get how you can operate out side the rules that exist and still be doing so in good faith. Where will that line be drawn then?
I want to see continuos financing so that after 3 months, the teams does not have to collapse for 6 months and then join again for 3 months…
I want a million bucks from xgov, but what I want doesn’t mean that it will happen. We have rules and you have not followed them in your proposals. I don’t get why the foundation or you are operating outside the rules set forth.
Either way it’s a mess right now, so some clarification from the people who decide would be neat. Sure it’s a pilot, but we can’t have some people operate outside of the rules. This will cause distrust and it will make people angry.
A link to a GitHub tells someone where to find the code, but that is not, itself, evidence of successfully delivery of a working smart contract. In fact, smart contracts are difficult to verify even for developers who understand the code.
I would expect some kind of clear success criteria to be met, such as the smart contract passing automated test cases for the core functionality of swapping through the clAMM.
i did answer you before, so i will just conclude that lets build better xgov platform and clear up the rules that are not well understood
please do not promote hate, but lets be as collaborative as possible (like some portion of this #163 proposal i consider to go to vestige and do not get why you chill so much against it)
we are building on the best blockchain out there and all the community hate around really kills me… i understand if it is because we won few small xgovs proposal and some people are jelous, but i dont understand it from you who got 350k algos from the session 2… and if i remember correctly you have recived even direct investment injection from the AF, so I understand this constant hate speaches towards our project only on basis that you want to get rid of competition
I am not providing any hate. I don’t get why you are slandering me in this way, everything I have said has been factual and nothing is personal. Stop trying to be a victim here.
I get that xgov is weird and not optimal right now, but what I am saying is that you can’t just say “it’s bad so I will just break the rules and do whatever I want”. Instead make an effort to change those rules. Because what you are doing now is just causing confusion and misunderstandings and will result in lost trust in this system.
I am not jealous about you getting money, I am saying that you are breaking the rules and that we need an official response, as I don’t think a system where people just do whatever they want is good. And us having a disagreement is not “hate speech”, what the fuck. That’s a serious accusation and you better be able to back that up (which you won’t be able to, as I have not been doing any kind of hateful speech).
It makes 0 sense that it’s up for vote and AF should have not allowed this @Adri@trekianov, why is it ok to ask for a milestone 2 if milestone 1 isnt finished? that makes this whole milestone thing and xgov in general a joke
I appologize to use the term “Hate speech” . I meant the that guys from vestige and few others for some reasons attack my proposals and search for everything to stop it, delay it or undermine my eligibility to deliver successfull products.
The “guys from vestige” is not doing anything. My words are my own. All I am asking for is for AF to clarify what is going on here. You are not operating inside the ARC, and the foundation is still putting your proposals on the ARC. This is not transparent at all, and the community needs to know what funds will be distributed from the xgov pool and what will happen with passed proposals/what precedent will be set for future milestones. I am not attacking you or “search for everything to stop it, delay it or undermine my eligibility to deliver successfull products”, I just want this one thing to be clarified. Yet you try to make me out to be a villain which I don’t get, we need to be able to critique each others work and proposals to ensure a fair playing ground.
While I can understand the rationale, the rules seem quite clear and are there for a reason. I would love to see everything move quicker, but that needs to come from structural changes to the system. We can’t do it by simply ignoring rules.
If we want to start ignoring rules, then I will gladly reverse my prior position that your liquidity proposal should be funded because the rules did not prohibit it. I will instead adopt a flexible approach where rules don’t matter and we just do what we want.
Hey crew, when a milestone grant is approved it is still conditioned to the previous milestone being delivered.
In Ludo’s case, only once milestone 1 has been delivered and the contract fully paid, we would initiate contract procedures for milestone 2.
We have been asking grantees to post links to their deliverables in github, so not only us but the whole community can check.
In the new design, there will be a formal approval process in place to “certify” that a deliverables have been completed before the funding is released.
We will discuss this at next week’s X Space session.
So in the first vote, for xgov 80, we passed both milestone 1 and milestone 2, but he has to deliver milestone 1 before you will do contracts for milestone 2? And if this one passes you will only do contracts for milestone 3 after milestone 2 passes? This is not how I would interpret the ARC, so i would love if you could clarify. In my mind he has to deliver the previous milestones before he can put the next one up for a vote.
If not, can I put say 5 milestones of the same proposal all to vote in the same period? This all seems very confusing…
And could you also touch on the subject of having to post xgovs to the forums? Quite a few of the proposals on the voting tool have no post here, or they were made in the last few days.
I would also like to better understand the rules about putting forward proposals for subsequent milestones before previous ones are complete.
If, for example, Milestone 2 of a grant is never delivered, Milestone 3 should not be submitted as it effectively siphons away votes from other proposals in a system which is currently zero-sum within each session.
What would prevent someone with a 5-milestone project from putting in all 5 milestones to the same session?
I get that, but what’s currently happening has to be through a transparent process. People can’t look back to previous iterations and find things that looks like unfair play. I’m not looking for a “gotcha you messed up” but rather just have everything written down so that people can’t go back and say “well he only got the grant because he’s friends with the foundation” or whatever. I really think shit like this matter.