If you are a responsible BKS holder, please follow me, I"ll darft a motion to transfer all BCE dev fund into reputed signers multi signatured. Of course we must elect some reputed signers before that.
Please vote my next motion.
We can negociate with @sigmike about the price of a certain amount of work. Paying at basis of Man hour salary is not good, we should pay for some features.
I agree that we should have transparency in accounting but complaining about it will not get what you want.
Being anonymous as you are has even less impact.
Motions will put pressure. So you are more likely to get what you want via motions although it is not enforceable by blockchain mechanism.
@Dhume put his fund under flot multisig as collateral and there is problem getting fund back due to (an avoidable) technical problem.
All righty ā now, please honor and comply with this statement of yours. Respect the integrity of language (if you have some) and execute absolutely that code.
Arrivederci!
No need to fight amongst ourselves, you both are right, asking for accountability is right, making it via block chain is fine, as long as share distribution is sound and not the same as nsr.
MaVo has the right to be angry, his investment is on the line and he deserves the answers, heās emotional but thatās to be expected isnāt it?
Yes, investors have right to be angry, and they should act, donāt just complain.
So actually we can avoid this problem, I"ll draft a motion to discuss about dev fund management, we need transparent development.
Personally, I think per feature cost voting is fine for DAO. Dev makes a proposal, shareholders confirm via motion vote, he delivers and gets paid. All nice and simple.
It has a lot of overhead though and may not be that attractive for the devs. I prefer to wrap up a few things so both can get a better deal. Shareholders a better price and the devs a more sustained piece of work instead of piecemeal stuff.
During initial and active development, I agree that milestone based renumeration is more suitable. After things are stable, per feature approach would be more suitable.
I think itās important to find a solution that promotes competition between capable developers who can deliver same features. in the end, to be effective, DAO has to lower its operational costs.
Publish feature requests on a board and let devs bid. I donāt think that will fly. Having transparent competition and taking skillsets, quality and time to deliver into account is not easy. You can only do that with people you know very well. Except likely Jordan, I donāt think many have an idea of our dev community and their performance.
Open to your thoughts though.