I think we’ll leave it to the DAO to decide what central contributor means. However, we stand by that this was a collaboration between two teams in a very unique time where there was no room for two light clients being developed separately.
I think our organization should refrain from providing a breakdown of this as it is likely to be biased/subjective. So instead, we try to frame the proposal to provide the evidence and details on what we worked on and the rationale for the costs incurred for PoktFund only. In terms of the responsibilities of LP, we were the primary owners of designing and implementing LeanPocket, and below are some artifacts of what was created primarily by us:
Initial Research (design doc, validator design doc, github proposal)
Proof of Concept (Infracon showcase)
Code Implementation with Code Review (Pull request)
Unit tests / integration tests (Pull request)
Community support on Discord/Telegram/DM
Rebasing and supporting chain halts for noncustodial lean pocket upgrades
Collaborating and reviewing LP documentation with PNI
Now, this is not to say that TH was not part of the process or was not a contributor to LeanPocket, They did help with testing it on their fleet, providing feedback on how to improve it, helping with Q/A testing, comarketing, etc. We don’t want to provide false details to the DAO - and we would say that both entities are pretty generally aligned on how the work was split. However, we don’t want to speak for them for what they did and how much they want for it - so take what we say with a grain of salt on what they actually worked on as there may be missing details there. Given that the DAO is not likely to grant based purely off impact (i.e $2m), this was one of the reasons why we decided to post a split proposal. Both organizations are in different spots and as a result, incurred different types of costs when creating LeanPocket.
Yes, this is a great callout - not sure how we missed this. To be honest, we combined them as two as we think there is a value-added in showing contributions that were actionable from multiple lenses for a comprehensive grant justification. We did an analysis of the fair market value to ensure that we are abiding by a range that is reasonable and has data backing it so that way the DAO is not held, hostage. A crit vulnerability bug bounty payout based on our research showed that the median ranged from $100k to $1m.
If we are breaking it down loosely, we are targeting around half of the minimum payout of a crit vulnerability (833333 POKT) and the rest attributed to LP. But once again, the security disclosure vulnerability is something new to the DAO, and so others may see that contribution as worth more or less.