I don’t understand how people trusted to this team so easily. The proposal received a predominantly yes vote and it looks like it will pass. This happened without enough discussion on the forum. Who are these people? How did they establish themselves as authority? They didn’t even say how the system would work. There is no smart contract or a system. Is it that easy to gain trust? This is not a game, every mistake we make will make us loose money. Am I missing something?
I am planning to open in nexus a discussion to develop a strategy there, with reliable people in a reliable protocol and asking for a compensation for nexus in MIR.
The role of this steering comittee is just a disturb to the normal decentralization process
Am I missing something?
You’re missing that it was initially announced two months ago and has been a work in progress until finally initial funding proposal was made on forum a day before the funding proposal was submitted to governance.
I think you’re also missing that the steering committee doesn’t actually have any authority over the protocol. What we have is a vote of confidence from the community to take the initial ask, use it to pay for actual work, and then submit that work to governance for acceptance by the community.
If we do well, we can get additional funding to pay for more work (and maybe even get paid ourselves), but it’s really hard to get development work done without there being at least some assurance of payment before it begins.
Nothing that the steering committee is doing prevents you from doing what you suggest in your Nexus post. We asked for funding to initiate movement in a particular direction. It’s a very small amount of the total treasury, and it doesn’t give the steering committee any authority over the larger treasury or the protocol.
If you submit a quality proposal for nexus to perform work and have Mirror pay for it, that could potentially also pass. If that happens, I would suggest some communication to make sure that changes don’t conflict or introduce unexpected risks to the protocol, but the steering committee doesn’t have the authority to block anybody else from doing anything.
how much of the proposed amount is compensation for you?
None. The breakdown is posted on what the intended funds will be used for. Also the address is public and you can track the movement.
Once there is a more transparent framework in place for bounties and spending, i may be awarded with payment for specific research or work, but I receive nothing just for being on the committee.
So I hope to get paid eventually, but I don’t know whether that will happen or how much it will be.
let’s see what happens. Perhaps this kind of initiative can break the current stagnant situation. I am not convinced but I have to admit that you look to act in the project interest at least.
I would appreciate to have two requirements fulfilled:
- select few tasks and break them in milestones so that progress of the implementors can be measured
- do not partecipate to governance with the obtained MIR
We plan to be fully transparent about progress and use of the funding going forward.
I can’t make any commitment on whether we use the MIR in governance because we haven’t discussed that in the committee at all.
The post says funds are for ‘research and development’, then gives a breakdown of what TYPE of research and development the funds will go towards.
It seems like you’re intentionally trying to mislead people.
Also, it sounds like you’re looking to pay yourselves 100% of the funds.
I just voted NO.
This is the downside of incentivized voting; people will vote to get the incentives without taking the time to evaluate.
- +1 @Sihyeok @tsuru @Waxillium i m align with the comment and your point
Trust and security first.
@Cle4ncuts, we dont know what type of anon you are.
Your econometrics are to vagues and evasive,
Quants desk ops like i am, cannot build math models on promises.
Adding extra structural real framework and formalises process without being to rigid.
Official Seal of approval TLF Mir core holders vote or statement, validations for the leadership transition of mirror steering committee is much need.
Just do youtube and video with
@dokwon , with your real face.
Not so sure I like the murky connection between @Cle4ncuts and Yield Found DAO. Red Flag with research and @josephsavage (not to knock on you again from our mspy discussion lol) about getting paid for performing research. Who chooses who gets to perform research? Ultimately that would be you giving you the authority to perform research and then get paid…
There would have to be a transparent framework in place. You asked how much would I be getting and instead of a blanket ‘nothing’ which is my current expectation, I tried to include possible cases where I might get paid something.
How is it a murky connection if somebody came right out and said they’re in another group? We are trying to get representation from nexus, spectrum, and others within the steering committee too.
Thanks, @Tuhalf, for raising these points. I’m becoming increasingly discouraged with how token volume relates to voting voice and, therefore, community functioning. Hoping for the best, but still…
the “Call to Action” to create the Steering Committee that you are linking included core contributors @Papi @Sebnondzee, and @frontman . I don’t see any of their names in the MSC-Prop 1 which is the proposal for the creation of the Steering Committee. Could you please elaborate why those in the original Call to Action were not in the proposal?
I’ve decided not to have an active role in the steering committee for unrelated reasons. Im still following closely . I cant speak for Seb but i think he busy building Capsule Protocol. The group leading the steering committee are some of the longest standing active community members that have shown consistent dedication to Mirror.
you and seb are the two names referenced above…
I will ask for an update
Sounds good. Thank you!