@JackALaing I would like to amend my comment from yesterday with some further clarification:
I do believe that open-source gateway tooling is a benefit to the community. The goal overarching goal is worth pursuing IMO.
The issue for me is how this funding came about. It is awesome that @poktblade started the ball rolling regarding v0 gateway conversation, but it appears Nodies was the only company to know that $300k was at stake for being the first alternative gateway in the ecosystem. Yes, Nodies has developed and self-launched their RPC webapp independently, but they have been the only ones with knowledge that PNF was planning to use DAO treasury to substantially subsidize gateway development in v0.
Had the rest of the ecosystem known that substantial funding from PNF was going directly to subsidize gateway development, I know many companies would have considered a gateway roadmap, my own included. Developing client facing, open-source gateway system is a lot of work and a high risk endeavor because there is no guarantee of return. From all the companies I’ve talked to, everyone in the POKT ecosystem is tightening budgets and trying to reduce risk to account for market conditions. Nodies on the other hand, has been aware of development funding plans and has been involved in the meeting between PNI and PNF, while everyone else has been patiently asking updates. From my perspective, Nodies had a clear preferential position, while the rest were essentially told to hang tight.
I also feel the LeanPOKT proposal was partially predicated on funding their future roadmap.
I’ve been under the impression that their substantial DAO reward for LeanPOKT was to support their short term future initiatives, including their gateway, which they announced prior to the proposal passing. I personally never thought that less then 3 months of receiving $353k, another $300k of DAO funds would be directly available to them without contest, especially when we have so many builders within POKT.
Clear The Air
To be clear, I don’t believe any of this was done nefariously. I do believe that PNF has the best intentions, and is looking to empower the network with gateway technology. Because of the high risk factor of developing gateway technology, without guarantee of return, it makes sense for PNF to invest in empowering the ecosystem with scalable tech. It is a solid strategy and I do believe that every company will benefit from open-source gateway tech.
My objection is how one company was able to position itself for guaranteed substantial development funding, without anyone being aware it has happening. I believe that something this substantial should utilize a POP system.
I also believe that there should already be an open technical spec for all node runners to participate in it’s design, prior to being guaranteed funding. Would it be possible for Nodies to be commissioned to create a technical spec first? Let us see the elements required and what technologies they plan to use (languages, libraries, databases, tooling, etc). From there, perhaps folks can give feedback or present their own for consideration? With such short notice, I don’t know who would be able to come up gateway plan, but I think it’s at least worth trying.
Move Quickly
I understand that the goal is to move quickly and I do not desire my feedback on this to slow anything down. I also want to help with solutions, not hinder progress and innovation. My mind is open to other thoughts on the matter, and I am very appreciate of PNF’s initiatives. I believe there was a misstep on this matter, but I believe PNF has had excellent communication and transparency the past 6 months.