@ethen You covered a lot of different topics above. The only one I’d like to respond to is on the topic of V1 development.
I posted an update yesterday on the responsibilities & composition of the protocol team within PNI:
Protocol development at this stage is difficult to manage from both a product and a technical standpoint. I honestly believe we have a small but high-performing team, and having “too many cook’s in the kitchen” could slow us down.
Whenever there’s an opportunity to bounty something out, we’re doing our best to do so and the work @h5law has been doing is proof of that:
Our main goal is to deliver a foundation that’ll “outsource us out of a job”. This requires good documentation, good automation, high code quality and the bare necessities from a feature standpoint. Another piece of proof of that is this GitHub Wiki that automatically updates whenever new changes are merged to main which also came from an external contributor.
Defining requirements, deliverables, specs, etc with too many external teams is really hard at this early stage, but we are constantly ideating longer-term outsourceable features (e.g. IBC integration). We’re seeing improvement month over month, and IMHO, we just need to keep doing what we’re doing.
References:
P.S. One thing we could potentially do (for future proofness sake) is increase the DAO’s per-block allocation so we have the funding to incentivize and reimburse devs team more (internally and externally). Might follow up on this in a separate thread.