Proposal for Testnet Contributors Fund

[raganius]

Put a donation address in your signature and get rich fast.

At least that's what I've been told...

If it was that simple it would be great, but that's not how "human nature" works

I guess most of us are estimates testing as important part of project.

But I guess just few of us understand how important testing is? I Mean which % of whole budget must be spending on testing?
I think people (MN OPs) need explanation and justification of the specific amounts...

Now I see 2 figures:
core-team: 1176 DASH/month
compensate-testers: 1588 DASH/month

For me it looks ... a bit suspicious, but if I can see explanation and justification of this disproportion - It will help to understand...
I think we should be very careful with all proposals numbers - so non of other project members shouldn't feel injustice towards them.

OK, I can understand our public-awareness campaign should be "secret" to protect us from competitors (hope results of this campaign will be very visible, not "secret" ).
But with testing... I can see no reason to have "secret budget".
Could we see a kind of business-plan of spending this "1588 DASH/month for testing" to vote for it more reasonable?

Perfect!

Incentive, (real incentive) IS necessary. And each single effort IS important. Without incentive there's no effort. I have been reading the DASH thread at the BTCtalk this morning, and it is clear to me that some key people in this community still don't understand this basic reality.

When DASH was only a "simple voluntary-donation project" it was "expected" to simply rely on the donation-work of us members: It was more than fair to see some people donating huge chunks of their free time and available money with the project, for the benefit of all >> but, of course for their own benefit, because no one will ever dedicate themselves to anything that will not bring them more (expected, at least) benefits them (tangible) losses.

It was easier to reach a "common-sense" of justice.

Now DASH is something else, it is a huge step further.... It may seem weird at first, but now it is not fair at all to expect that some people will work for free while watching others earning for their works.... remember each effort IS important, and (not only) for humans effort and dedication demand incentive.

While DASH will no longer have to "fight" for money, deep inside, we will have a quest ahead, for a perception of justice amongst our members.

To be honest. IMO this community (at least some key members) are still not mature enough. But with this new horizon we all will grow a lot inside.

 

[nmarley]

Most, if not all, agree on the importance of testing and testnet. I don't think that's the issue between a 'yes' and a 'no' vote — but it looks like the way the argument is being spun is that if you're pro-testing then you should vote for this proposal. I'm 100% pro-testing.

But my concern is the way it's being addressed here — only one person or a few can modify this list of testers. People have to raise their hands and point out how they've been contributing to testnet.

Who makes the determination on who's contributions have been greater and how people get compensated accordingly?

I set up 2 testnet masternodes before I set up my real masternodes, just to test them out for myself. I don't expect nor want any compensation for it, but my point is, Coingun's contributions are way higher than mine. But what if someone did only the "minimal" contribution on testnet and then expected to be compensated? How is that determined?

And, it goes without saying, but I will anyway - all humans are subject to cognitive bias.

Is there a more systematic way to assist with testnet without considering mixing the main and testnets outright? (BTW, I would never suggest, condone, consider mixing test/main — very bad idea.)

 

[elbereth]

Thanks for putting me in that list.

This is a good test of the system.

I think this should have been a one-shot payment. As it is, if passed it will lock that amount for 12 months and who knows if the testers will stay the same.

I cannot vote but if I could I would vote YES.

Put a donation address in your signature and get rich fast.

At least that's what I've been told...

If only!

 

[moli]

Thanks for putting me in that list.

This is a good test of the system.

I think this should have been a one-shot payment. As it is, if passed it will lock that amount for 12 months and who knows if the testers will stay the same.

I cannot vote but if I could I would vote YES.


If only!

Hi elbereth,

I put in number 12 but it doesn't mean it would be locked in for 12 months. I could ask it to be voted down the following month or it would just be voted down if no longer needed. This is what Evan has said many times, that there's nothing set in stone here and the budget system is flexible. All of those proposals that are passed now could be down voted if there were enough "no" votes.

 

[raganius]

Hi elbereth,

I put in number 12 but it doesn't mean it would be locked in for 12 months. I could ask it to be voted down the following month or it would just be voted down if no longer needed. This is what Evan has said many times, that there's nothing set in stone here and the budget system is flexible. All of those proposals that are passed now could be down voted if there were enough "no" votes.

Perfect!

 

[moli]

A recommendation for the next proposal(s) (not only addressed to you, moli):

• You don't need "http://" or "https://" as prefix for the proposal URL. And because Evan's 3 proposals did not have it parsing of the URL would be much easier if everyone would do it the same way.
• On a second thought I think you did it right because without the prefix it's actually not a valid URL, even when browsers know how to handle it. eduffield should add "http://" or "https://" to his next proposals.

During testing i found out i could skip the URL and the proposals still went through. But I just now checked, he changed it, or maybe during testing somehow that piece wasn't there for a while...

 

[elbereth]

Hi elbereth,

I put in number 12 but it doesn't mean it would be locked in for 12 months. I could ask it to be voted down the following month or it would just be voted down if no longer needed. This is what Evan has said many times, that there's nothing set in stone here and the budget system is flexible. All of those proposals that are passed now could be down voted if there were enough "no" votes.

True..
Would be nice to see a multisig destination address that sends directly the budget to each tester (please test this on testnet before).

 

[Jeztah]

Testing is important and people should be compensated. How is it proven who contributes to testing? I've run testnet nodes in the past and nobody even realizes it, I would imagine there are more than a few like me.

I'd rather see a dedicated team named and it lowered to under the core dev reward amount, let the rest burn. Just claiming the reward because "they are going to burn anyway" is contradictory to the system's intention imho.

 

[moli]

True..
Would be nice to see a multisig destination address that sends directly the budget to each tester (please test this on testnet before).

Agreed. At the beginning of testing v12 Evan put in two proposals with multisig addresses to test... didn't work. I noticed my wallets would stop syncing at the blocks right before the superblocks that paid to those multisig addresses. I don't know why they didn't work. But i guess you know.

 

[UdjinM6]

True..
Would be nice to see a multisig destination address that sends directly the budget to each tester (please test this on testnet before).

Yep, no multisig, no multi-address yet...
But that's only a first release and we wanted to keep it simple and working.
Besides that I see is no reason why we can't implement multiple recipients in single proposal imo, that would be more transparent and will remove the need to trust that submitter will split funds later according to his "text" proposal.

 

[moli]

Yep, no multisig, no multi-address yet...
But that's only a first release and we wanted to keep it simple and working.
Besides that I see is no reason why we can't implement multiple recipients in single proposal imo, that would be more transparent and will remove the need to trust that submitter will split funds later according to his "text" proposal.

I'm just curious.. We can send tx's to a multi-sig address but the blockchain can't mine to it. Could you explain why?

 

[UdjinM6]

I'm just curious.. We can send tx's to a multi-sig address but the blockchain can't mine to it. Could you explain why?

Nope, no idea tbh

 

[QuantumExplorer]

Well for me, and I might take some hate here, I am going to vote no, and hear me out, mainly because I think the proposal's amount is disproportionate, the core team is getting less and I just don't agree with doing that.

A more reasonable amount, like a quarter to half of the core team and I would have voted yes. In fact I'm sad I have to vote no, because I would have liked for there to be an amount given to testing.

I think it would also have been a good idea to discuss with other testers as to how the money would be distributed between various people and make it quite clear to the community how many people would get what and for what contribution.

In post places I've worked at there is 1 tester for 5 to 10 dev's. That's how most structures organize their resources. Dash testing is much more intensive but still shouldn't be getting such a high percentage of available resources. For Dash, Evan and Udjin probably combined do the work of 10 devs and each tester probably doesn't test for 8 hours a day so we need a lot of testers than developers but the resources should probably payout along the same ratio.

There are a lot of projects that I can think of that would need this money in the future. C++ code review, Dev Masternode documentation, Masternode voting portals, marketplaces etc etc. I probably will make some proposals but am still looking for people to actually do the work as I'm quite busy at the moment with the iPhone wallet.

 

[moli]

Well for me, and I might take some hate here, I am going to vote no, and hear me out, mainly because I think the proposal's amount is disproportionate, the core team is getting less and that I just find ridiculous.

A more reasonable amount, like a quarter to half of the core team and I would have voted yes. In fact it annoys me that I feel obligated to vote no, because I would have liked for there to be an amount given to testing.

I think it would also have been a good idea to discuss with other testers as to how the money would be distributed between various people and make it quite clear to the community how many people would get what and for what contribution.

In post places I've worked at there is 1 tester for 5 to 10 dev's. That's how most structures organize their resources. Dash testing is much more intensive but still shouldn't be getting such a high percentage of available resources.

There are a lot of projects that I can think of that would need this money in the future. C++ code review, Dev Masternode documentation, Masternode voting portals, marketplaces etc etc. I probably will make some proposals but am still looking for people to actually do the work as I'm quite busy at the moment with the iPhone wallet.

Hey,

You can put in your proposal, hurry up. This proposal is not going to pass even if you put in another vote.
Get your proposal together and submit it. There's no need to insult the testers here.

 

[QuantumExplorer]

Hey,

You can put in your proposal, hurry up. This proposal is not going to pass even if you put in another vote.
Get your proposal together and submit it. There's no need to insult the testers here.

I'm not trying to insult the testers. I think you guys are doing a great job. In fact as a one time payment for this month I would also have voted yes. Please I just wanted to voice my opinion that the contribution of the core team is not inferior to the testers.

As for putting a proposal up, I'm going wait till next month when I have a more solid idea of what I want to propose.

 

[moli]

I guess most of us are estimates testing as important part of project.

But I guess just few of us understand how important testing is? I Mean which % of whole budget must be spending on testing?
I think people (MN OPs) need explanation and justification of the specific amounts...

Now I see 2 figures:
core-team: 1176 DASH/month
compensate-testers: 1588 DASH/month

For me it looks ... a bit suspicious, but if I can see explanation and justification of this disproportion - It will help to understand...
I think we should be very careful with all proposals numbers - so non of other project members shouldn't feel injustice towards them.

OK, I can understand our public-awareness campaign should be "secret" to protect us from competitors (hope results of this campaign will be very visible, not "secret" ).
But with testing... I can see no reason to have "secret budget".
Could we see a kind of business-plan of spending this "1588 DASH/month for testing" to vote for it more reasonable?

Yes, I should have put in just "1" for the number. But as I already explained.. This is not a number set in stone... Evan has said many times that the system is flexible. If you don't see a project in "mnfinalbudget" voters still can change the outcome. You can change your votes after you voted on a project, that's how flexible it is.

What I was thinking was how we could improve Testnet and I had already discussed this with Evan in emails. Every testing we had to depend on donated masternodes, donated miners, donated explorers.. etc, so i was thinking if we could have a budget to pay for those items and their operators. Running a masternode is not free. I had asked around to get feedback from some members and the average cost to run a mn is around 3-5 USD... I told Evan my dream was to see about 500 or more masternodes for the next testing and you can do the math how much that would cost. There have been questions and suggestions for our testing system for a long time, not just now, but i guess people gave up their idea and quit helping. We have lost several key members for Testnet. The amounts I suggested to pay the testers on that spreadsheet are just nothing, but they're just something to encourage people to build this project and community. I hope this can help you understand and i'm sure you've been there done that..

 

[moli]

I'm not trying to insult the testers. I think you guys are doing a great job. In fact as a one time payment for this month I would also have voted yes. Please I just wanted to voice my opinion that the contribution of the core team is not inferior to the testers.

As for putting a proposal up, I'm going wait till next month when I have a more solid idea of what I want to propose.

The number 12 is just a number. Yes I should have put in "1" instead. But as I've explained, and Evan has said many times that when a proposal is voted in, it doesn't mean it's going to be set in stone. At the next cycle it can be voted out of the budget if there's another project that voters like better. Evan wants to create a system where people will have to compete each other and create the next best projects for this coin. I hope this is clear for everyone to know how this budget system works..

 

[QuantumExplorer]

The number 12 is just a number. Yes I should have put in "1" instead. But as I've explained, and Evan has said many times that when a proposal is voted in, it doesn't mean it's going to be set in stone. At the next cycle it can be voted out of the budget if there's another project that voters like better. Evan wants to create a system where people will have to compete each other and create the next best projects for this coin. I hope this is clear for everyone to know how this budget system works..

I just want to tell you how to get my votes, because I want to support testing, and I bet some other people think like me. I will vote yes next time you make a proposal that focuses on reimbursing people for previous testing work if the amount seems proportionally appropriate vs other endeavors and I understand to whom the money is going and what they did to deserve it. (I don't need to know every detail, but a general idea would be good)

As someone not involved in testing (other than my own app) I don't know if you have 50 people you want to distribute the dash to or just 5. Some I see don't want the money, so it doesn't appear very transparent (At least to me).

 

[moli]

I just want to tell you how to get my votes, because I want to support testing, and I bet some other people think like me. I will vote yes next time you make a proposal that focuses on reimbursing people for previous testing work if the amount seems proportionally appropriate vs other endeavors and I understand to whom the money is going and what they did to deserve it. (I don't need to know every detail, but a general idea would be good)

As someone not involved in testing (other than my own app) I don't know if you have 50 people you want to distribute the dash to or just 5. Some I see don't want the money, so it doesn't appear very transparent (At least to me).

I understand now what i presented doesn't seem clear to everyone as i thought. I've been with this project for over a year so I kinda know who has contributed what and how... It's time consuming to explain to people.. but i get your point.
Evan also told me he has a plan.. no detail yet.

 

[alex-ru]

Moli, I understand you!

I just want to remind that budgeting system isn't only the great opportunity, but the great danger also,
let me quote old tungfa's post here:
"I really want to emphasise the importance of our volunteers !
This is an Open Source Project, and everybody is encouraged as always to do their part.
We need you (volunteers) as much as always and probably even more in the future as the project is
growing and more work will come our way !
We can NOT do it without you !"

And when we start paying some people, we really "open Pandora box" that will be hard to close. There are always problems with people - they (in general) too often think they do the most important job, but get less than others... (and no budget distribution can satisfy everybody - so some people will start feeling unhappy... )

So I would advice not to pay to people at these first stages (except super-trusted team members with absolute trust) - but to pay direct expanses in crucial processes.

It'll be great if Evan create the list of infrastructure we need to support regularly: hosting for dashtalk, dashninja, and so on, hosting for testNet Masternodes and so on - with detailed calculations so everybody can check (and offer optimizations) and vote to support it.

 

[bertlebbert]

Well for me, and I might take some hate here, I am going to vote no, and hear me out, mainly because I think the proposal's amount is disproportionate, the core team is getting less and I just don't agree with doing that.

A more reasonable amount, like a quarter to half of the core team and I would have voted yes. In fact I'm sad I have to vote no, because I would have liked for there to be an amount given to testing.

I think it would also have been a good idea to discuss with other testers as to how the money would be distributed between various people and make it quite clear to the community how many people would get what and for what contribution.

In post places I've worked at there is 1 tester for 5 to 10 dev's. That's how most structures organize their resources. Dash testing is much more intensive but still shouldn't be getting such a high percentage of available resources. For Dash, Evan and Udjin probably combined do the work of 10 devs and each tester probably doesn't test for 8 hours a day so we need a lot of testers than developers but the resources should probably payout along the same ratio.

There are a lot of projects that I can think of that would need this money in the future. C++ code review, Dev Masternode documentation, Masternode voting portals, marketplaces etc etc. I probably will make some proposals but am still looking for people to actually do the work as I'm quite busy at the moment with the iPhone wallet.

You do seem a bit undecided, maybe some clarification will help. I realize it's not immediately apparent,
but the budget actually breaks down as such:

    Dev team tips       ( 4 X 50)         200        ( 13%)
    Infrastructure      ( 6 X 60)         360        ( 24%)
    Tester tips         (28 X 30)         840        ( 56%)
    Guides written      ( 4 X 10)          40        (  4%)
  Total                                  1500        (100%)

 

[QuantumExplorer]

You do seem a bit undecided, maybe some clarification will help. I realize it's not immediately apparent,
but the budget actually breaks down as such:

    Dev team tips       ( 4 X 50)         200        ( 13%)
    Infrastructure      ( 6 X 60)         360        ( 24%)
    Tester tips         (28 X 30)         840        ( 56%)
    Guides written      ( 4 X 10)          40        (  4%)
  Total                                  1500        (100%)

where is that breakdown coming from?

 

[bertlebbert]

where is that breakdown coming from?

moli's spreadsheet, here is link: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1i_26pnK7ktmdYTYO3kDTm1Fze9HkSlfHQUC3ygxGl28/edit?usp=sharing

 

[moli]

Moli, I understand you!

I just want to remind that budgeting system isn't only the great opportunity, but the great danger also,
let me quote old tungfa's post here:
"I really want to emphasise the importance of our volunteers !
This is an Open Source Project, and everybody is encouraged as always to do their part.
We need you (volunteers) as much as always and probably even more in the future as the project is
growing and more work will come our way !
We can NOT do it without you !"

And when we start paying some people, we really "open Pandora box" that will be hard to close. There are always problems with people - they (in general) too often think they do the most important job, but get less than others... (and no budget distribution can satisfy everybody - so some people will start feeling unhappy... )

So I would advice not to pay to people at these first stages (except super-trusted team members with absolute trust) - but to pay direct expanses in crucial processes.

It'll be great if Evan create the list of infrastructure we need to support regularly: hosting for dashtalk, dashninja, and so on, hosting for testNet Masternodes and so on - with detailed calculations so everybody can check (and offer optimizations) and vote to support it.

I don't think so. I used to think like this when this idea of budget was introduced. But seeing how it works i don't think that will be the case. There's talks of giving away the coins to charity and whatnot.. but to me, "Charity begins at home." We can depend on volunteers for so long, and even tungfa said a different statement somewhere else but i am not going to get involved here.

 

[Minotaur]

This would be my recommendation for a budget proposal:

1. Evan or Flare who is a Quality Assurance specialist could come up with what would be a good test-net infrastructure setup to have in place at this state of the project. How many nodes, in what type of servers, etc, and we could get an estimate on how much that would cost and how would we convert the required Dash to BTC or FIAT, if needed, to avoid selling on the market. This way the actual testnet infrastructure is actually subsidized by the budget system.

2. A one time stipend/recognition for historical contributors could also be nice.


3. Open a few positions for Testnet coordinators that would receive a monthly stipend for being in charge of coordinating tesnet, guiding others, etc.

4. Keep a bigger group of volunteers that help with testnet, just for fun, under the guidance of the coordinators who have more direct responsibility.

 

[buster]

I voted yes for this because I trust moli and I appreciate all the time and effort she puts into this project. Are testers deserving of this? I believe so. Moli basically bleeds Dash and she helps a lot of other people who also want to bleed Dash.

I wanted to note something: People should NOT be discouraged about speaking against proposals out of fear or anything else like that. Remember it's how the system works. There will always be people who disagree with one-another and that is a beautiful thing. Why? Because we're going to wring the shit outta these proposals and pass the absolute best ones.

Now don't get me wrong on this next part I'm not saying it's happening in this thread or anything. I wanted to give a word of unsolicited advice to people who plan on making proposals. Try your best not to be defensive, hurt, sad or anything of the sort when people disagree with your proposal because it makes speaking out against your proposal intimidating to others.

With that said I want to thank Moli for taking the first step in proposing a budget. Evans proposals were awesome but coming from someone other than the core developer is more awesome.

*edit few typos

 

[italx]

Moli, I really appreciate the time you spent on this and in general the huge commitment to testing that I've witnessed over the last several months. It's clear that we are moving into a new world where testing contributions can actually be compensated and encouraged ad that's huge.

That being said, there is something about this that just doesn't sit well with me. There seems like there has to be a better way and this feels like a rush to grab "uncommitted" money before the super block. Perhaps it's in the way it was presented, but that was my first reaction.

Full disclosure. My name is on the list since it was in Evan's post. Why was my name on Evan's post? As far as I can tell it's only because I posted in the testing thread. I don't think anywhere did I disclose that I've run 2 test masternodes and a handful of wallets mixing/ cpu mining or in any way tried to publically quantify my contributions to testnet. Why am I involved? As a masternode owner and investor in Dash, it's in my best interest to help any way possible. (And i enjoy it) After the previous releases it's clear additional testing is beneficial. Testing provides a nice spot for non-developers to contribute a little bit.

Perhaps this is what feels wrong about this proposal - there are a bunch of contributors likely not recognized, and it just has an overall arbitrary feel to it. It's trying to retroactively give money to folks that had no expectation for reimbursement. It just seems like there is likely a better way to create incentive and reimbursement for testers in the future and strengthen testnet participation and infrastructure by at least a factor of 10x. I disagree that voting "no" on this proposal means that testing is not critical and participation shouldn't be improved.

Of course it's easy to just be critical of the proposal and say that it's not ideal. I don't have a better suggestion right now. But it is my understanding that other proposals are in the works, and I trust that this community will put forth a robust solution.

Keep in mind it would be in my best interest to vote yes and get some dash for myself, but this one just doesn't sit well with me unfortunately. I've voted no. I think for this whole process to be successful it's important that proposals are not just rubber stamped yes because "the coins will be lost anyway". I'm encouraged by the lively debate in this thread thus far that this will really be a viable system of governance.

 

[AjM]

How about this: someone make ONE time payment proposal to testers when new major version is officially released?

 

[Minotaur]

Full disclosure I did not support the current testnet budget proposal, because I am looking forward to support the revised version of a testnet proposal in the line of what I described above on the next vote.

I felt the amount was arbitrary, basically the whole amount that was left, in my personal opinion we should assign the budget to specific expenses we need, not really look to spend everything available each month. I don't subscribe to the idea that un-allocated budget means "burned" coins, I feel our emission now includes a dynamic budget component that varies each month and can be up to 10% but there is nothing wrong for it to be less than that.

On the other hand, we should remember that the network give us tokens, the buying power of those tokens depends on the exchange rate and demand. We need to respect the market and be conservative with our spending, at the beginning we should prioritize expenses that can bring more users and raise demand. This in turn can support the price and give us more buying power. When we have more buying power we can be less conservative. We should also emphasize getting OTC trades for any exchange required.

Having said this, I want to thank everyone that helps with testing. To be honest I felt awkward not supporting the proposal because I felt we needed more time and it was a bit rushed I hope I did not offend anyone. I am looking forward to a revised version of this project.

 

[raganius]

I don't think so. I used to think like this when this idea of budget was introduced. But seeing how it works i don't think that will be the case. There's talks of giving away the coins to charity and whatnot.. but to me, "Charity begins at home." We can depend on volunteers for so long, and even tungfa said a different statement somewhere else but i am not going to get involved here.

Perfect again!

IMHO it is not a matter of (third party) "quality assurance". Actually it is a matter of coherency: if the system brings rules for the creation of budget proposals, as long as someone submits a proposal by these rules, it is the network that will judge the quality of the proposal.

If there are tips, donatons, charities and volunteers, great, they are always welcome. But now the community must learn to walk the steps we have decided to take. That is the consistent decision. We are at the beginning. Still learning how to do it. But in the long run it will bring us great results.