inb4 luigi is found to be a Google spy

sgp_: I think trying out this proposed refund policy for this one proposal, and if it works put it up, or if it doesn't make adjustments, is the wise thing to do before codifying it right away and throwing it on the site.

How do we even know this will be a test?

Shouldn't the request for feedback be a PR or issue for comments?

If there's a need to change we can change it later...

I guess I really see this as a thing that should be thought of as independent from a specific proposal

sgp_: why would we full implement something that may turn out really difficult or awful?

Because 1) refunds and partial fundings haven't really happened, so 2) it's piece of mind, and 3) it's weird to tie a CCS ToS to one particular proposal

In effect there should be no difference, revise in either case if something needs improving

Plus it will serve as the starting point anyway if some other CCS needs a policy applied

So basically this seems to be a needless blocker to me for no good benefit

Like suppose another proposal isn't completed, what would the process be? Why would it be different unless we tested it and knew it was bad, at which point time it would be changed anyway

*point in time

Any circumstance when this would be run into, some sort of action would need to be taken. Might as well be clear that this is our best thinking for all these sorts of cases at the time

So, if i understood correctly, most of the points of my proposal are being accepted right? The only notable difference is that instead of redirecting the money of the failed proposal to a dedicated fund used to redistribute to other CCS proposal is that the funds are redirected where who opened the proposal suggested (in this case to MRL).

Honestly i think that's even better, who opens the proposal can suggest where the funds where go if their proposal fails, and i would suggest, the standard (if there is no preference) could be redistributing to other CCS?

Btw if this reshapes the CCS and its strucure, i think it's necessary to have a PR that sets these changes in stone, so they are official

After that happens, according to the new rules, i have nothing against moving the atomic swap proposal to funding required, but i do think a PR is necessary and the community at large should be informed of the changes first

so let me recap just to make sure i got this right. New rules for the CCS:

1. Only minimal technical vetting in the form jwinterm suggested and i reported in my proposal

2. possibility to refund 50% of the donation within 48 hours of the declared failure of the old proposal

3. Possibility for CCS proposers to choose where the funds donated to their proposal will go in case of failure (what about the CCS redistribution?)

I guess that's it, but the discussion seem to be focused on this propoal specifically. luigi1111 says "the only topic worth exploring for me regarding this one is funding feasibility and any potential changes around refunds/etc"

so what about that?

I guess I really see this as a thing that should be thought of as independent from a specific proposal -> i really agree with this. Looks like the conversation seems to be around this specific proposal, but if we change the CCS we should have a wider picture IMO

screenshot of a draft for the donate page. embedded video to watch right next to the donation mask

what about for repeat proposers that they can link to a "profile page" of some sort, to reduce strain on front matter? new proposers will still be required to attest their credentials/expertise

this may ease things slightly for known proposers/repeat prescriptions (where prescriptions == proposals)

also, are we really ok for a gmail refund address, or was that a joke/jibe?

profile is a really nice idea, you can view contributors like team members of the decentralized project

well, we have to prove autonomy/independence - but may streamline somethings

we can also get people badges and matching team underwear

rehrar: ^

48 hours seems short? Like what if it's declared dead on a Saturday meeting and Monday is a holiday

what are the rules for calling something dead?

(sorry if i missed this)

is it "no donations for a month" or something?

seems like it could be gamed

make it luigi1111⊙go so it's in domain

i agree with ErCiccione . I believe it would be beneficial for the proposals to have the option to decide where the funds will go if they're not fully funded, as long as it is explicitly

explained in the proposal itself

by omission or default it could go to the general donations fund

charuto: I don't think this is wise. What if they decide where the funds go is themselves or something equally obnoxious?

there were have to be restrictions on the possibilities. Perhaps even a whitelist.

Should be limited to a few well-known alternatives

needs to be a predefined list

E.g. dev fund, MRL fund, general fund

then people wouldnt fund the proposal if they dont agree with the option

by funding they are accepting they are ok with the funds going wherever they may go if the proposal isnt fully funded

maybe im naive but i dont think anyone would fund a proposal that said the funds go to the author even if the proposal doesnt get fully funded

This assumes that any future proposal can request contributions from one of these defined funds?

Presumably, if funds are available

This should be clearly delineated

So donors know that "the dev fund" and "the MRL" fund are available (in theory) to any future proposal

i've changed my mind, such systen could easily be exploited

it could introduce all sorts of conflicts of interest

if/when he atomic swaps goes to funding requested the deliverables should be clearly stated

without making it too complicated a fund could donate some % of itself up to % of the new proposal

I can see it now "but they said it was going to be used on a dex/ I thought a dex was being created"

yes for predefined list

i have a small concern about refunds: if institutions external to the monero ecosystem donate through the CCS because they have direct interest on a specific project, they might not be ok to lose 50% of the funds if the project is insuficiently funded, and they will probably not donate through the CCS at all. is that a valid concern?

im specifically raising this because we plan to reach out to a few different places

My initial proposal was to redirect funds to a CCS fund that could be used to fund other proposals. That could be a best option if redirecting funds is seeing as controversial (and i see why it would be). So it would be part refund and part to the CCS fund

but yeah, the "ccs fund" could be one of those predefined funds

*predefined items in the list

I also don't mean to make a big deal of this, but with the departure of sarang, and surae also doing other things, we don't really have a MRL that needs funding per se

I know MRL is bigger than sarang and surae, but they were the ones that needed funding

also also, one of the concerns about bulletproofs+ was the perhaps our engineers could work on it and they can do an audit. With our paid MRL researchers moving on to other things, is this still something we're considering, or should we just fund BP+ as is and have them do it and get it independently audited?

I think an MRL list could be beneficial anyway. New people could start creating research related proposals that could be elegible to be funded through that fund

Could also be a good way to attract researchers

then someone would need to decide which opened CCS proposals are eligible vs which ones aren't

rather than a general CCS fund that can fund CCS proposals, including those that are research related.

mebbe should ask particl to contribute some funds to the project ...

Particl is that project that made a token, failed, did a really short time period swap to a new token, rinse and repeat?

Or am I mixing them up

no that's the one

shadowcash

I think

yep, the same shadowcash fraudsters

<rehrar "I also don't mean to make a big "> Sorry rehrar, "Departure of Sarang and surae" I'm missing something, where are they going?

To be fair none of the original shadowcash people are involved anymore. Ostensibly.

Lovera[m]: suraeNoether took a position with Isthmus and sarang is moving on to other thing.

I am taking a break from research due to burnout

Starting at the end of this month

teaching full time or something else?

Nah, unrelated software development to pay the bills

money is nice

Research is fun too, but there's a lot of stress involved with this kind of research and funding environment

I completely understand

or at least partially understand

my level of understanding is between 0.01 and 1

heh

It's difficult to avoid the self-imposed pressure to regularly produce research output

and while community funding is exceptionally generous, it's not guaranteed

sarang: enjoy your break and your (hopefully) stable moneys :*

Thank you. I hope to see you again soon for MRL

To be clear, I am not saying "goodbye forever" or anything!

But I need a break, that's all

I will be completing my funded CCS research through the end of the month, to be clear

and will provide the usual monthly report

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to discuss (in the future) what the community can do to alleviate stress

I don't think this is any kind of external pressure

You did mention funding as a source of stress though right?

Perhaps we can explore 6 or even 12 month proposals for researchers that have built quite some credit

As I've mentioned before, this would provide greater stability, but also decreases accountability and donor signalling

And then you have to figure out how to specify who "qualifies" for this kind of proposal

True, but that is arguably less a problem for researchers with significant credit

We can set a term limit I suppose

e.g. one can make use of it after 1.5 or 2 years

Would this merely serve to favor "entrenched" researchers and put up barriers to new researchers?

Sarang there wouldn't be barriers since they could still get funding, albeit on a shorter time scale.

Hence my initial proposal of an MRL fund that you would need to be established to get on, but still keeps community signaling and sentiment.

What determines if you can be part of such a fund?

my original proposal was at least one successfully funded and completed research related proposal

I would amend it to at least one successfully funded and completed objective based proposal followed by one successfully funded and completed time-based proposal

at that point, you can request to be a part of the fund, and core would agree or not

but that is min for eligibility

also we're playing among us. Join us.

OK, so there's a set standard for joining "the fund"

FWIW I would not qualify for this method

I have only done time-based proposals

but this should not be what determines a good method

yes, but core can maybe grandfather someone in

This should all be established