Community dev contribution

We have a near 100M ANC community fund, and there is currently a hiring challenge at the Anchor core team.

Why not use the existing governance/forum/funding framework to implement the “improve-Anchor” ideas from the community? We effectively use it like a weird ANC-compensated JIRA.

Maybe to kickoff, a community or core Anchor team member can post a small and easy task with some ANC reward. Community votes on the task, and if passed, funds go into a smart contract. The task writer should get a small cut.

A community developer can implement, open a PR, and upon successful merge, opens another vote to claim the ANC reward.

Or some other process that results in community devs contributing to the core Anchor codebase, compensated by the community fund.

Thoughts?

1 Like

@jc69 This is something I have been thinking about for a while and something I briefly have brought up to the TFL team. Thanks so much for bringing it up.

The idea I have is very similar to what you have and the Terra Bounty Board recently announced. However, this would be an ANC-specific board to award ANC community funds for projects.

The board would be elected from a balance of community members and TFL staff, ideally 8-10 members. Ideally, they would be paid a small amount of ANC for ~10-15 hours a month (having half TFL staff cut this cost down). Criteria for being eligible for election would be from a rough KPI (Key Performance Indicator). This KPI would evolve and needs further development; its metrics are community voted. Ideally, we can start with forum contribution metrics. In short, it’s one key tool needed for a successful DAO.

I would also like to see the funds go beyond just developer work. Keys to making this platform successful are also business development, community activity, content writing, etc. which could be awarded by the board to members that stand out for hooking the platform of with key strategic partnerships, highly influential blog and Twitter posts, etc. This is a fair, needed incentive metric to get the community more engaged.

Developer work would need some more refining with bigger projects. I think projects over 10k need higher levels of monitoring and accountability so funds are not just sent out all at once. Funds need to be only released based on milestones of work that have to be presented and agreed to by the board and signed off on before the first amount is awarded. I have seen way too many funds questionability given away without accountability. As a tech working who runs my own business, I could never expect to get paid in full until the job is done, typically with a 2-week buffer after the work is done.

I like this idea as well. It would be the bounty part of the program whereby weekly and monthly tasks can be posted for rewards.

Lastly, everything has to be fully transparent and posted on this forum. The downside of decentralized gov is that it takes way more time to get things done. But we have to understand that and honor it and do whatever possible to create inefficiencies - a board being one of them. It is also a distinguishing decentralized metric that would help in relation to regulation.

This is a great start and will need more granular details worked out and an official proposal voted on to get this off the ground.

Would love to hear everyone’s thoughts, ideas, suggestions, dissents.

Oh ha, yea this is basically an ANC-version of the bounty board; I am surprised I didn’t make the connection.

Thanks for adding your thoughts; I think we can try implementing some of the foundational ideas you mentioned as a experiment.

  1. “Council” - this is delegated staking/voting i believe? i think this is a good idea to maintain engagement from active community members, and set up a compensation mechanism.

  2. “Accountability” - an escrow-type smart contract to hold ANC payment for requested work; unlocks payment based on voting

After the liquidation proposal finishes, maybe we can start requesting small/well-scoped work. Don’t think there’s much to lose aside from looking silly from low voter turnout.

The #2 item might be worth tackling sooner than later; I’ll devote some time to that, and see if it gets any traction.

*edit* i suck at threads *edit*

In a way, it’s delegated voting but only for community-approved fund amount allocation to projects under a certain amount. The board or council would streamline the work of vetting these things and creating accountability. Of course, all this once decided would be posted online.

I think the first step is actually getting the board approved with a wallet balance that would have to be refilled by community vote every year. There would also have to be a whitelisted dollar amount per project the board can approve without a community approval vote, somewhere around 25,000.

I see no reason not to start moving forward with what the proposal for the board would look like and get that fleshed out and submitted soon if we get a little more support for this.

This also brings sets the stage for preliminary testing of emergency voting brought up by @PFC which a frame for the board could be worked out as well.

coding by bounty?
not a fan AT ALL.

It just incentivizes people to write crap, grab their money, and have no consequences to fix/maintain it further.
this happens at all levels… (individual, team, company, etc)

now rewarding by revenue streams… that might work… but the devil would be in the details on what quality looks like, SLAs, and all the other things you deal with when you hire software houses.

1 Like

Agree we need solid metrics and not all rewarded at once. Too much money has been lost this way.

I think we can look at it two ways:

  1. paying for added features the platform needs. You get paid a small deposit and only paid in full once the community agrees it works how it should.
  2. Building something that adds revenue to the protocol, we could work out scenarios that would somehow pay a big payout based on this. Def needs a lot more thought but we can’t continue with free handouts like this.