(edit : I edited this post to fit the format suggested by @jrbhere )
Preamble:
Gas has been too damn high a lot of the time lately. I believe there are some projects out there that could surely use a hand with gas for testing or diving in and going live with their project. I don’t remember who they are at the moment but I encourage them to post here if they like, I’ve also put a message in the Rocketchat asking for help gathering info.
Proposal :
Councilmembers, please consider all parts of this proposal adjustable. I want to give you an idea to run with, feel free to make it your own, or make it work however is necessary. I think this adjustability should be assumed for all proposals.
I propose that at least 2 ETH be earmarked for the purpose of encouraging on-chain numerai-related projects to go live. You might implement this by earmarking funds, setting up a screening process, and offering to reimburse the first 1 ETH of gas expenses for an approved applicant.
Timeline :
I’m not leading any of these development projects, so timeline should be determined by the relevant parties. I think you should set this up as soon as possible (1-2 weeks) given Richard’s stated wants for the Council to act quickly (and get much more funding). The faster the better!
Best case outcome :
2 or more projects get off the ground, gain more traction, and go live, expanding the network of Numerai-related stuffs.
Worst case outcome :
Incentives are misaligned and delivered prematurely in combination with stalling, lack of start, or similar project failure.
Success criteria :
(amount of grants spent on intended purpose) divided by (amount of grants total)
Funding required :
2 ETH
I welcome community and council feedback and commentary and have included a poll below.
One thing that I certainly like about this is having ETH on hand to support on chain projects would be awesome, especially watching NMR drop all the way back to 55, some type of contract/option would be awesome to help people staking alot manage NMR’s risk
If I understand correctly, you want to earmark more than 50% of the CoE treasury of 3.7 ETH to encourage on-chain Numerai related projects by paying for their gas. With gas costs at an average of 100 gwei and a transaction costing 21000 units, that’s ~952 transactions (2 ETH or 2000000000 gwei / (100 * 21000)). How do we know that that’s what is needed?
Don’t get me wrong; I’m completely behind stimulation of on-chain projects related to NMR. But my suggestion would be to let those projects submit a proposal themselves, with calculations showing what funds they would need exactly and why. E.g.: we have this and that smart contract running on testnet, it has proven to do x and y, this has value for Numerai because of a, b and c and deploying and/or running it would cost z ETH in gas.
Why earmark funds when there’s no clear plan in place on how to spend those funds, and why such a big chunk of the total funds available?
this was the first CoE proposal made. Back then, I was thinking the CoE should be proactive in it’s actions, hence the proposal. Now the meta of CoE proposals seems to be very specific, and person/group wanting funding directly making the proposal. I don’t think that’s the most efficient or effective way for the CoE to operate, but I’m not one to fight the meta in this case, and I’m glad to let this proposal fall flat with no support if that’s where it lands
the reasoning for a large chunk though is because Richard Craib has urged the CoE to put their funds to use, quickly, so they can receive ~10x as much to work with. I was assuming the CoE, if they accepted the proposal, would also be finding the projects to fund.
Closing this proposal off as rejected. Future gas expenses can be added to the funding requirement if needed when proposals are made in the future by individual projects.
