We don’t want to derail this thread on ownership of lean pocket efforts. This should not be a discussion of any previous negotiations between private companies (we won’t go into this) but rather the work completed by PoktFund and the reimbursement for said work. At the end of the day, other organizations who contributed in any way, shape, or form can make their own proposal and justify an ask to the DAO for their effort. We are NOT separating this proposal to say we are the only ones who contributed or should be reimbursed for efforts towards Lean Pocket. This particular proposal serves to purpose the reimbursement for PoktFund’s efforts in Lean Pocket and Chocolate Rain.
To clarify what we’ve done in terms of Lean Pocket, it is indisputable that we did most if not all of the work on development, unit testing, supporting upgrades, and review processes (refactors) with the core team (see commit history on the pull requests). ThunderHead made the first public post about the unnecessary 1:1 relationship between nodes but as per Blade’s post here , this had been on our radar for some time as well. It was also not the first time we heard of the idea or a unique issue prior to the post (this was also on core team’s radar and was briefly discussed with noderunners)
The crux of it is that we found a large inefficiency where V0 core bandwidth development was limited and we had the protocol expertise to fix the problem in a timely manner. We collaborated with ThunderHead as to not duplicate work thus they assisted primarily in testing on a large scale production fleet, co-marketing, and navigating the core team discussions to get them aligned. They will make their own proposal for reimbursement on those items and anything else that I missed. The work done on the designs and source code is primarily what we are seeking reimbursement for when it comes to Lean Pocket. As for community support/marketing/aligning core team, we put in significant effort for this too but do not claim it as a solo effort.
There have been attacks on our character and to be frank we aren’t interested in any such arbitration. It is clear cut what work we did as it is engrained in commit history. This is about being rewarded for the work completed and recognizing the loss opportunities we endured as a company (delaying our node operator business, no privatization) to get this out for the greater good. We hope the DAO recognizes our efforts and acts accordingly.