PEP-62: Msa Reimbursement Request

[shane]

Thanks for the response. Happy to better communicate with the following:

@msa6867

First off, I think it would be much preferable for you to clean up your post to remove all these reference to GRIP. This creates an unfair bias by which (1) it makes it seem your personal feedback should carry extra weight because it comes from a GRIP member and (2) gives the “impression” that I ignored/did not heed the feedback provided by GRIP.

No intention to create an unfair bias. I would encourage anyone to look at the feedback I provided on the GRIP Discord. I basically copy and pasted the relevant parts from the convo over here.

You did indeed make a lot of changes, especially with added references to each of your claims. I greatly appreciated that as it makes looking back at this work much more straightforward. Folks are welcome to review the GRIP Discord for feedback, and they will see you did make many worthy changes to the format and sources.

Thank-you for that

@msa6867

Last, I do not think you are really thinking this through completely. Imagine how this would have looked from PoktScan perspective had the DAO voted to fund an independent analysis. In a case such as PUP-25, asking the DAO to pre-authorize and fund an independent analysis is fraught with danger as it could lead to bias in the minds of voters to presume that the independent analysis authorized by the DAO is superior to or more trustworthy than the analysis provided by the proposal authors. This would be unfair to proposal authors. It is better for independent analysis to be provided first to avoid this possible source of bias and then be considered for reimbursement on the merits of the work provided.

My opinion may differ here from yours… but if someone is proposing that the DAO invest into significant code changes to the protocol, then I think it’s fair that the DAO put resources into vetting it. Personally, that sounds like a good process to me.

My research was the catalyst to GOOD VIBES not going through… and I would have been happy to see the DAO first sanction the research as a matter of a due diligence process, instead of just on my own dime at the last minute So may just be a difference of opinion here.

@msa6867

Is there a reason you feel my work on SER should be compensated but not my work on ACCURATE and FREN, both of which also passed? Or the work behind the scenes to aid PNF in setting SSWM?

SER was your eco proposal that passed, so that make sense for it to be a reimbursement. ACCURATE and FREN were @Cryptocorn, so if there is to be evaluation for your contributions, then it should be in respect to the evaluation of the the original author IMO. That’s why I think a single proposal is better, so the evaluation of value is the same

Regarding the work you did for PNF, that could be reimbursed by the DAO or PNF could compensate. Not sure… but my point was that SER has strong standing for sure.

@msa6867

For one, it should be remembered that he is employed within the ecosystem and a fair amount of his presence felt over that last year was funded out of that, not out of DAO; I would venture to say that his total POKT-related compensation over the time period exceeds what I am requesting.

Personally, it gets too confusing if I need to consider someone else’s salary or theoretic holdings to evaluate another’s proposal. I also believe your salary outside of POKT should not be a factor in the evaluation of your work. That is just my opinion.

Overall, thanks for response and providing your perspective on my comments