Within the context of this discussion, it’s obvious that his invitation was a disingenuous attempt to deflect from my original point rather than a genuine request for my input. And his follow up, (similar to yours) is an attempt to gaslight the situation.
At no point did i call anyone any names. nice try, maybe the next narrative will stick.
As far as tones go, i would argue that you and @Lorimer are the one’s condescending.
This conversation has gone far off topic at this point. This will be my final response. I wish both of you a good day and best of luck in your endeavors.
Hi @cryptoschindler and @lara , appreciate the ping! The announcement is now updated, and we’re fully on board to apply for the team grant.
As requested we have added another team member as reviewer and tech mentor.
Changes made in the original post:
added new team member: Avi Sanadhya (Tech Mentor):Linkedin
Thank you for the update and efforts from your end.
We recently received a late proposal submission for the “IC-OS Version Election” topic by @EnzoPlayer0ne , and we wanted to address the situation transparently. After reviewing the process and considering the fairness of next steps, we wanted to share some thoughts:
Unfortunately, the applicant did not follow the process outlined in the thread. Specifically, he missed the deadline that was provided.
Given this, we believe it would be unfair to consider his proposal. There may be others who held back from applying after realizing they had missed the deadline, and accepting this submission could undermine the integrity of the process.
If we were to consider his proposal, it would defeat the purpose of the structured process we set up in the first place. Making exceptions could create inconsistencies.
We do acknowledge that having more applicants would have been beneficial for this topic. However, it has been clear for some time that we would only submit two proposals for this particular topic. Anyone interested had sufficient time to act within the proposed deadline.
As this is a new initiative, we are committed to learning and improving as we move forward. We will certainly reflect on this and iterate on the process. In the future, we may consider adjustments, including additional funding, more reviewers, or extending deadlines where appropriate.
We appreciate everyone’s understanding and look forward to continuing this work together
Hi Mortiz, I’m afraid I must disagree with your position.
It is nearly impossible to follow up on every thread on the forum daily, especially one as active as this one. As stated in my proposal, while I was voting and looking up every applicant, I realized the need for more depth for the most crucial topic: the IC-OS version election.
IC-OS version is the most heavily weighted category, and the lack of competition should not be a default win for all applicants. The initial goal of this grant is to decentralize the reviewers and let the community elect parties they trust to help them make a judgment. Given this is not currently the case, I threw my hat in the ring at the last minute, less than 48 hours after the Foundation made the proposals.
In the spirit of fairness, I should not have more parameters than the other applicants. As a result, I am proposing to tally the votes for my proposal when all the others submitted by the Foundation end. If anything, that would penalize me as I would have had less time to make my case. However, given my late reply to this thread, it would be a fair outcome.
We agree that it’s not always easy to keep up with threads in the forum, but we expect parties interested in participating in grants for voting neurons to monitor the topic closely. For this particular initiative, we tried to ensure it reached as many people as possible. This included posting about the initiative on X (see here and here) and communicating via developer channels. The fact that there were only two applicants for the “IC-OS version election” topic was clearly visible in the posts within this thread.
For now, the DFINITY Stiftung is compensating the grantees for their contributions. To ensure a clear, transparent, and fair process, we established several requirements for participating in the program. One of these was adhering to the deadline (July 31) for applying.
Your application missed this deadline by more than two weeks. As mentioned earlier, if we were to make an exception now and lift this restriction, it would undermine the integrity of the process and could be considered unfair by participants who adhered to the process or entities that did not submit their application because they realized they had missed the deadline.It’s unfortunate that your application cannot be considered because, as you mentioned, the goal of this program is to decentralize the proposal reviewers for the specified topics and nurture a culture of strong, genuine reviewers. Of course, we would have been happy to submit another proposal for an additional entity, especially since, as you pointed out, there are currently only two applicants for the “IC-OS version election”.
If you have any feedback on how we can further improve this process in the future to prevent similar situations, we would love to hear it.
We would like to update you on the outcome of the submitted proposals, specifically regarding which applicants will receive support to be a voting neuron for the four proposal topics in the form of a grant. In the following table, you can find the YES and NO votes for each proposal submitted and the respective SUM, which is calculated by subtracting the NO votes from the YES votes. For each topic, the two applicants with the highest SUM will receive a grant; these are marked in green in the table.
IC OS Version Election
CodeGov (Team Grant)
Zenith Code LLC (Team Grant)
Participant Management & Node Admin
CodeGov (Team Grant)
Aviate Labs (Team Grant)
Protocol Canister Management
WaterNeuron
CodeGov (Team Grant)
Subnet Management
CodeGov (Team Grant)
Alex Lorimer
We are currently setting up the necessary internal infrastructure to support the grants for voting neurons and will get back to you with more details and instructions for the next steps as soon as possible. In the meantime, please review the table above and the outcomes for the grant recipients. Don’t hesitate to reach out to us if anything is unclear or inconsistent.
Thanks to a hint from @ZackDS I corrected a mistake for the “Participant Management & Node Admin” topic. “Aviate Labs” actually has a higher SUM than “Rivram”. This is corrected in my previous post and the google sheet. Apologies for the confusion and thanks to our community for being so diligent!
I would like to respectfully raise a concern about the recent grant distribution. One of the core goals of this grant program was to promote decentralization, not just in network infrastructure but in the decision-making process itself. The intention, as I understood it, was to empower the community by allowing them to elect diverse parties they trust to make fair and balanced judgments.
However, it appears that the grants have been heavily concentrated among a few parties. This approach, while perhaps well-intentioned, seems to contradict the initial goal of decentralization. By centralizing grants in the hands of a few, we may inadvertently be undermining the broader vision of a decentralized network.
Wouldn’t it be more equitable, and in line with our long-term objectives, to ensure that grants are distributed among a wider range of participants? This would allow more teams to contribute, bringing in fresh perspectives and fostering a healthier, more resilient ecosystem.
I believe that spreading the grants more evenly, with each category being represented by a unique participant, could be a more effective way to achieve the decentralization we all value. It’s crucial that we give more teams the opportunity to contribute and not let a few dominate, as this could hinder the network’s growth and innovation in the long run.
There’s nothing stopping everyone contributing right now. I’ve been doing so on Subnet Management proposals for weeks without any extrinsic compensation (out of a passion and desire to learn more and more about what makes the IC tick). In doing so, I’ve also intended to demonstrate aptitude for the topic I’ve applied for. I’ve also repetitively invited others to do the same, but with very little participation so far (I’m not sure why, are you?).
I think the thing that should be emphasised is that with these grants the IC will be moving towards a more decentralised state of governance than it has now. That’s great, and should be applauded. I’m sure there’ll be more of this to come.
I’ve also independently checked the outcomes, which are consistent with @ZackDS and @cryptoschindler’s analysis. Here are the graphs of the Yes votes minus the No votes. I’d encourage interested parties to also independently check the accuracy of these results.
I will answer because some people are absent this week, but they can then add a better answer next week.
Since we first need to set up the process with all the grantees, it will likely not be ready by the beginning of September. However, we also discussed if it is possible to maybe just start in the middle of the month.
We will keep you posted!
Hi all,
to ensure that we have a consistent process for discussing proposals of different topics, in general but also to find the verification and analysis required by the voting grants, we made a proposal how to use categories, sub-categories, and tags here.
This seems to be in line with suggestions made in this thread.
We hope you like it as a starting point!
I’m happy to be able to provide you with the next steps in our process after a bit of silence in this topic.
Grants for Voting Neurons Kickoff
We plan on kicking off the voting neuron grants on the 15th of September. After this date, the eligible projects should start reviewing proposals for the respective topic they’ve been voted in on. Every reviewer is supposed to leave their review on the respective proposals forum topic. You can find the topic for a submitted proposal by using the filtering function of the forum, more information is available here. We are giving a grace period of a week in which proposals are not considered when calculating the minimum threshold of a 90% voting and reviewing participation.
Please find all details regarding the operational part of this process here. I’d kindly like to ask the eligible entities to reach out to me here on the forum so I can share with them
write access to the google sheet mentioned for every reviewer
the URL to apply for a Developer Award
If there are any uncertainties, please don’t hesitate to reach out.
Thanks @cryptoschindler for the update, and that’s really great news! I’ve sent you a request for access through the Google Sheet.
Couple of questions. We start reviewing on 15 Sept - is that based on UTC, CEST or any particular time zone, and is this with respect to when the proposal was submitted? Also, should there be a “September” sheet in the document or is each sheet named after the month in which the review period ends (e.g. “October” for the period ending 14 Oct)?
Hey @cryptoschindler who is expected to add new columns to each sheet for each proposal? When will they be added? For some of the topics, there will end up being a lot of columns.
We start reviewing on 15 Sept - is that based on UTC, CEST or any particular time zone
I did not think about this, but let’s say based on CET.
and is this with respect to when the proposal was submitted
And yes, it’s with respect to when the proposal was submitted.
Also, should there be a “September” sheet in the document or is each sheet named after the month in which the review period ends (e.g. “October” for the period ending 14 Oct)?
I created the September sheet, thanks for the heads up!
