PEP-35: The v0 Optimization, LeanPocket

[adam]

I have been thinking a lot about the proposed methodology for valuing proposals. I firmly believe that the value-based approach can get out of hand quickly by setting a dangerous precedent for DAO compensation.

Shane sums this up well in his argument.

@shane

While an innovative client is worth rewarding, we can’t disproportionately reward client work from 3rd parties over the innovations of core-devs. The reason more the core-dev team has not been pushing for more v0 client work is because they are focused primarily on v1 . If the value of a new v0 client is worth $2M, then why would core-devs be motivated to work for PNI on v1? This would signal that two months of development on v0 outside of PNF is worth a 10 year salary.

This value-based approach would have the impact of demotivating the core team or other Foundation contracted service providers. Contributors would be incentivized to work on the sexy, public-facing deliverables, rather than long-term, game-changing solutions. As Shane said, if proposals aren’t treated equally, then most contributors would focus on low-risk, short-term fixes that maximize personal returns.

Let’s look at the proposed logic provided in this proposal in defense of the $2M figure.

@addison

While this is in fact a large ask relative to other proposals, it’s important to keep that notion of relativity when we think about the impact it will have. The amount of savings from this optimization makes the reimbursement amount look frail in comparison. And as mentioned previously, the ROI of this endeavor is tremendous, and will have immediate impacts.

The logic, in essence, is impact = value = increased compensation. While I can understand the point, this can be extractive in a system not designed around capitalistic tendencies.

@o_rourke

Your incentives are such that by building this improve the long term prospects of the network. The amount of success you have is compounded by a successful light client.

To Mike’s point, the DAO is not designed to provide profit. It is designed to provide fair compensation for work. Further, Thunderhead and PoktFund should be driven by the overall success in the community. Their success should be aligned with, and driven by, the success of the community, not a single proposal.

Whatsmore, the proposers should have a financial incentive to build things like the light client to optimize their fleet of 4,000 nodes. Part of their reward is that optimization in the form of costs savings. The other part can be obtained by open-sourcing and maintaining their solution. Encouraging value-based proposals leads mercenary developers who come for a paycheck, build something, then leave that thing unsupported.

If we believe that this proposal is worth $2M in POKT, then any other proposal that accomplishes the same cost savings would be worth similar amounts.

PUP-15: GOOD VIBES (Updated Version 1.1) - A New Economic Policy for Pocket Network - #23 by adam accomplishes similar cost savings in a parameter-driven way while having the added benefits of less inflation (more value) and it eliminates the overprovisioning problem.

To the supporters of the value-based model: is PUP-15 also worthy of a $2M+ grant?

I do not think so. You would be hard-pressed to argue that the cost savings/value are markedly different, and according to my last comment, the outcome is actually more predictable.