Thanks for making the points above, although I think they’re fair, I don’t think they, along with the original post’s points, justify this proposal’s value especially considering my analysis of the development you’ve done and it’s use in the future version of 1Hive Gardens. See further down.
Regarding your points above:
Point 1. I’m interested in what degree of customisation you intend to integrate into the Marketplace UI/what you mean by “Plug and Play” and are you referring to further development of this website: hatch.tecommons.org / https://github.com/TECommons/tec-hatch or something else?
Point 3. The more people have eyes on our contracts the better. I will gladly guide Adria through what would be good to be looked at. However, I’m curious at what cost this will be, many of our contracts I believe aren’t worth paying to have audited.
Point 6. Can you describe what UX changes you believe could benefit the 1Hive Honey Pot website because they’re not obvious to me from looking here: gov.tecommons.org?
Since I don’t consider the TEC Gardens to be directly benefiting 1Hive and Honey, unlike all other outflows from the common pool afaik, what I’m interested in seeing, and the main reason I’m interested in supporting the Gardens Swarm considering the amount that’s being requested, is reusable software.
1Hive has a plan to make a generalisable version of Gardens, @lkngtn should be clarifying what that is ASAP through some updates to the 1Hive Wiki, as soon as he does we can make a plea to align TEC Gardens development with 1Hive Gardens and for the current Gardens Swarm to work on 1Hive Gardens post TEC Gardens. With that in mind I have some questions and comments about the deliverables you have specified from the original post (see Deliverables so far: section in original post).
Hatch: We adapted Aragon Black’s fundraising app (Specifically presale.sol) and upgraded it to use Aragon connect. Here’s the second iteration: hatch.tecommons.org
To clarify, you’ve created a website (https://github.com/TECommons/tec-hatch) that interfaces with the Marketplace contracts that allows users to purchase tokens using the presale process, is that correct? Does it do anything beyond allow people to buy tokens or will it in the future?
Also can you clarify if you’ve modified
presale.sol. The only changes I can see to the Marketplace app (where
presale.sol lives) are addressing technical debt (very useful, thanks for that), besides this the functionality has not been modified afaik (excluding some minor permission modifications).
I’m not sure if 1Hive Gardens will be bootstrapped with a presale so without further details as to what this website is intended to be I’m not sure if this is something that 1Hive Gardens will use.
ABC: We adapted Aragon Convert to use 1hive Marketplace (which converts tokens without batching). You can exchange TESTTEC Tokens via an Augmented Bonding Curve: convert.tecommons.org
For reference this is a fork of an Aragon website, code is here: https://github.com/TECommons/tec-convert. Is this finished? This may be useful for 1Hive Gardens when converting already existing tokens into 1Hive Gardens Governance tokens through the Marketplace app. Although I’d like to think such functionality would be integrated into a single interface along with the other Gardens functionality.
CV: We adapted 1hive Honeypot v1 to be used with two tokens, and adjusted the governance token price oracle to read from the bonding curve instead of honeyswap. You can vote with Conviction Voting Here: gov.tecommons.org
For reference this is a fork of the 1Hive Honey Pot website, code is here: https://github.com/TECommons/tec-interface. I don’t believe 1Hive Gardens will use 2 tokens so I don’t think this will be useful. Even if it is I think, conviction voting should be integrated along with the converter and maybe even presale functionality above into a single website.
DV: We ran a demo of 1hive Dandelion Voting with the TEC community here: TEC Test Dandelion Voting App
1Hive Gardens will not use Dandelion Voting it will use Disputable Voting. There’s no software or likely other info here that can be reused.
This isn’t a put down in any way of the work of the TEC, I’m sure the software is well written and I do consider what you’re doing valuable, but I also think it’s necessary to highlight to the 1Hive community how the current Gardens Swarm is contributing to 1Hive’s technical goals.
In terms of technical infrastructure there is nothing that is obviously reusable for 1Hive Gardens. In terms of community learning I believe there is benefit. Ultimately I do not consider the current proposal worth awarding $60k for. However, if we could start creating alignment in the Gardens Swarm with 1Hive’s generalisable version of Gardens, which I have no doubt is largely inline with the TEC version of Gardens, where some of the software written could be reused for 1Hive Gardens, and perhaps from which there would be interest in working on 1Hive Gardens in the future, then I could be in favour. If you are interested in creating better alignment between these efforts, then I would propose some meetings post @lkngtn’s write-up to work out the right direction.
As for the proposal value, I’d like to highlight that the first proposal hoped to receive $50k, ultimately it only managed to pay out $10k due to price changes so I would expect you to be requesting $40k. However, you are requesting $60k, can you explain what the increase in price is due to? Also I suggest whatever value is landed on is paid out through multiple instalments so the community can judge progress.