Budgets Open for Review: EOS WPS First Referendum

All discussion of the budgets for the first WPS Referendum should be in this Thread. All links are here:
https://medium.com/wps-working-group-eos/budgets-open-for-review-eos-wps-first-referendum-2d2586c2d89f

Comments

  • edited September 2018

    Do we have guidelines and policies in place for dealing with un-used funds or have anyone done a risk assessment?

    We have been discussing budgets in mainnet telegram group the other day and the majority of the crowd are not happy with the level of information these budgets provide.

    1) About ECAF:

    The proposal does describe some estimations for humongous budget. In the market, no one pays 1Million for 6 months just to build a scalable portal. I am no expert on technicalities but I have experience with business and am also an engineer so many people agree on this during the mainnet discussion. The main concern here is ECAF should be self-funded by the work it does.

    An alternative proposal would be lending money for the development to just get started and later on ECAF returns.

    2) Worker proposal system platform:

    This is something many of us agreed upon, which is important for EOS ecosystem and the team working on this is good.

    3) Mainnet Repo:

    This is a controversial topic, there are many uncertainties today whether EOS mainnet will follow block.one path or not. In either cases, the BPs should be responsible for maintaining the network- Which means the upgrades, infra management and also testing before upgrading. It's good to have a central repo but all BPs should do there own due diligence.

    If we agree upon this then it would be a scenario where this group will be like employees to the mainnet in a decentralized system.

    From telegram discussion, some concerns raised were buying mac books and also cost estimations.

    4) Emergency Committee:

    The details of the proposal kind of overlap with what WPS platform team supposed to build. We understand that the committee acts as a guidance group but in reality it should be part of WPS team.

    Both WPS and this committee cannot exist independently. So, they have to be under the same umbrella. So, as WPS platform already have a proposal this should be ignored.

    Some snippets:




Sign In or Register to comment.