- We`ve heard you Operators, and we know you`re eager
- It`s getting really easy to hate Apple nowadays
- Google Pixel > iPhone As a person who uses
- Congratulations to everybody on the team that worked so
- After yesterday`s tweet, Some people questioned, Why I had
- Hi guys, konting help lang, which is beat for
- ICYMI: "Trump will not return to Twitter even as
- What smartphone are you using and why?
- Still in denial that the @acast listener app is
- PlayStation dudes think they running at 120fps when they
- I am donating 2 #Devikins #NFTs to @IoPayat who
- Garmin Fenix 7s Solar 24 hour first impressions
- What`s wrong with this image
- Till Samsung creates a new OS different from android,
- We are very excited to be doing first AMA
- I have no idea how TVs work anymore
- Be honest - have you ever held your smartphone
- This or That? https://t
- Pls recommend a good smartwatch under 20k which u
- What is this prizes 1000 usdc rules 1
- _______ is the most underrated iPhone feature
- what are the most notable acquisitions of all time
- March NPD Results Hardware 1
- Night Photography
- Nowadays l delete some apps to accommodate others
- Just a reminder - System apps arent considered bloatware
- Gurman: Standard iPhone 14 to Miss Out on 48MP
- Revelation: Navigating the crypto fundraising process https://t
- Apple has this morning, yet again, alerted me of
- Don`t worry Xbox gamers, when PlayStation Gamers are playing
There should be a portion of Catalyst funds every
January 22, 2022, 5:18 pm
There should be a portion of Catalyst funds every round that go to projects/teams that HAVE delivered value without applying or getting funding. It`s like the lowest risk thing we can do to fund people who have figured out how to deliver value inn their own.
my apologies if I misspoke, I honestly don`t know much about unsigs...
Agreed, but in my mind this doesn`t justify allowing the disproportionately small of people to wield all the wealth and power. We need to balance the forces of centralization and avoid creating a full blown technocracy without democratic oversight. (unrelated comment?)
Also I think thats the more appropriate way to do it, depending on the difficulty level. For example creating a DEX or MELD is hard work need some upfront funding for research and prototyping
Well you are rich
I appreciate you and your contributions
I actually liked your idea and you should have applied for funding
Art and entertainment category should exist.
Maybe a process where people add projects to a list, and then people vote on those during catalyst, it`s indeed quite needed.
We aint leaving, despite the storm and the bad weather
Jesus. Doesnt mean they will again
I agree, and I think you are right. It would probably offer a higher ROI. (it`s the higher level philosophy, long term implications that I`m having trouble accepting) Not everything needs to maximize efficiency and ROI... Sometimes there`s a cost to do things ethically.
Ideas are nothing if they arent executed nicely
@XZactLeptoquark good ones tend to come from a disproportionately small piece of the population.
I dont know whats is going on in the catalyst I didnt get involved much, but at some point I ll. I was waiting for some structure to emerge where decision making is very democratic and has layers of representatives if somebody cant be bothered going through all the projects
I`ve never asked for any money ;) ;) jk
My vision for crypto is more about funding ideas and technology, not personalities. (but I agree there are some creators that are under appreciated in the Cardano community)
I am kidding as you see I never asked for money .
This is perhaps something for DCF, is on it.
I think it wont work. Its public money, the fellowship you shared its not public money. Its different. Such an idea should have the right structure and delegated committee that its voted each time to make representative decision based on some info from the team
The only one who deserves the MacArthur Fellow grant is and his team
Mee to I disagree of the idea of giving free money from public money to a group of people that because they did smth in the past I will assume they will continue doing it without an explanation of where the money will go.
probably better than appointing lifetime tenure to the OG`s
You said every round that goes to projects, maybe you mean independent projects but I thought the same. Yes just realised through the discussion, just making my points of what I believe is more fare, right and potentially sustainable in the long run for community driven funding
No. Its the lean startup methodology rather than VCs to be honest. In the startup world you think about offering value, a solution to the user. If thats described correctly along with some budgeting then you get going. Then you need to think monetisation (bring money in)
I really like this idea.
I think it should have multiple layers: - New projects - Existing projects Each different category should be dealt differently but always up for voting and explanation, budgeting etc. I know VCs look like the enemy but behind the scenes this is what they do, they evaluate.
I agree ccvault should get funded. I`ll vote for it, and I`ve bought a few of their NFT`s. But picking specific examples is a dangerous way to build large systems. (I`m not entirely opposed to your idea, it just needs to be carefully considered, pros-cons long term)
OK, I think I see where you are going with this. And I agree it may be the quickest most efficient way to get cool things built. But I look at the long term and wonder if this doesn`t re-create the centralized money/power/control that we are trying to avoid with decentralization.
Both projects either new or ones that already showed progress and are working, if they want extra money they should request it in the form of where the money will go aka business plan in a way. - Salaries - Infrastructure - anything else
I think thats a bad idea if not managed correctly for people to be accountable and responsible where the money goes. For both existing and new projects.
You can use your funds to reward them... but this sounds like you want to use Catalyst funds (owned by the entire cardano community) in a very undemocratic way to reward the winners. Or are you suggesting this would be voted in?
Or we use it to buy politicians
I might be reading this all wrong, but it kinda sounds like your saying if your successful in creating value (and rewarded by the community that buys your product/service) then you should receive more money without having to work for it? Can you please elaborate?
Also select for historical record of shipping "good shit". Doesnt guaranteed will continue to ship it. You need some sort of accountability and responsibility based on the money you get. If you want to get my % you will have to prove to me that its worth it .
dEcentraLization woo Yes but dont blindly select it. When is public money it should be budgeted. Have you ever applied for EU funding ? Its similar process, much more lengthy and a bit centralised but the idea is that you explain what you will do and where the money will go.
I dont disagree. What I am saying it should be based on democratic process. For example a team that already has a product should still apply for further funding based on cost estimation. Then a representative catalyst team should evaluate it and vote for it.
To be honest I tried catalyst and I think is hard too. There must be a better system. Something like Reddit but for catalyst or smth
I agree that it might be a waste of time but I think the work needs to be done and incentivise participators, create multi levels of representatives. There are solutions to be more democratic than to create a model that seems like taxation and of monopolistic nature
you have good points, very good points. I wonder how could Catalyst be kept simple yet not fund projects which will not deliver anything.
How can I participate in the catalyst ? I mean to introduce changes suggest ideas?
I think the best way to do it, is to ask the team (outside) to apply for funding right? If they dont get voted then I can suggest that there are a lot of things that can be changed but the proceSs should always be democratic based on voting.
I agree about your first point I will answer on the other tweet
I dont think its the best way to do it. Everything should be budgeted (do the work to estimate how much money is needed to introduce new changes, maintenance etc) then it should be voted. Giving somebody money indefinitely is a bad idea, just like current public systems work
Seriously people do you actually consider this? Where and how is the decision making for this? How can I participate? I want to make my points. You cant seriously say that everyone should be paid automatically that already offers some value. It creates the same issues we have
I think thats a bad idea in a decentralised system. You are basically saying have a base salary? Regarding its performance? I think thats not a good idea. I think it should be based on KPIs and community requests for improvements with budgeting that can be voted somehow.
I agree, I would also add from myself that there should be 3 categories: Funding: - project driven - regular monthly for companies delivering value all the time until called off, here, e.g. - for who has delivered value already That`s what challenge setting is for. Put it up, get feedback, refine, campaign for support and see it in the next voting cycle.
Ccvault spends something like 10k a month on their servers and everything to make a wallet that actually works
only problem I see here is the ossified infrastructure, because status quo. the hardest thing to change is a good habit.