CLOSED: Socket for support and maintenance of SendWallet

[b3n]

Before getting to the specific points raised I want to level set re wPOKT and Sendwallet:

Browser functionality is a necessity to minimise user mistakes and remove PNF from the risk of having to process refund requests and acting as 24/7 customer support for wPOKT. Sendwallet is the only pocket wallet with browser functionality and is critical to the launch of wPOKT.

To be abundantly clear: Sendwallet will be the only wallet on launch of wPOKT.

PNF will be announcing a POP in the coming weeks to upgrade and maintain the official Wallet. Browser functionality will be a key new feature. Until then, Sendwallet is vital to the success of wPOKT.

With that in mind:

@Cryptocorn

Send Nodes was already paid by the DAO to build a community wallet

The previous grant was to build and open source the wallet. This is not the same as having our only browser wallet free of bugs and well maintained for a catalyst event like wPOKT. Keep in mind that we will (hopefully) be welcoming a new cohort of users interacting with our ecosystem through wPOKT and they deserve the best, most functional and most secure browser wallet possible.

@Cryptocorn

If we support the maintenance of a Node-runner under the guise of keeping an already-paid-for, private, closed, commercial product as ‘Maintenance’, then all Node-runners should be compensated.

I strongly disagree with this framing because 1, see reasoning above and 2, it’s happening through a mechanism that could not be more open (evidenced by us having this conversation).

@Cryptocorn

This is NOT an experiment. We are not learning anything new or supporting critical parts of the system - we already have a Pocket Wallet. This goes against the Socket guidelines supporting a superfluous addition.

Sendwallet is a critical part of the ecosystem in the context of wPOKT, and having an open ticketing system for bugs and maintenance of sendwallet is a new functionality. I believe users want the product better maintained and more functional and you disagree. What could be more of an experiment than to see which one it is when Ethen is back here in a month self-reporting on how many tickets were raised and bugs squashed.
Re PNI and the main wallet, I don’t think it’s a good comparison and is debating a hypothetical rather than just using the evidence of this socket in a months time to tell us if Ethen did a good job of sizing or not. This is the main idea behind using Evidence over Confidence.

@Cryptocorn

If SN and Co want to build something open source, shareable and of benefit to the entire community, I would support it. This however is the opposite, it breaks funding guidelines and shows favouritism towards one Node-runner over another. If we want to subsidise ALL Node-runners, that’s a separate discussion, and has its own merits.

As a reminder:

Sockets are small seed-style grants that support community contributors to rapidly spin up and experiment with contributions towards our ambitions.
A Socket request can be opened under the Build / Socket section of the Forum. It is open to anyone that meets the lite Permissions criteria

Sendnodes are using the mechanisms available to them and to anyone else who meets the criteria.
I frankly don’t know if $2500 is the right price for this first month of an experiment but it seems a very small price to pay to give us confidence that our only browser wallet is in top shape for wPOKT, and I think the evidence from the work on IBC, Testnet, Design and PoktNews shows that we have a community that takes opening a Socket and putting their reputation on the line very seriously.
Regardless, we will all be back here soon with a month of maintenance history and learning a lot about our mechanisms and our judgement, and that’s an inherently good thing.