Milestone payout insurance - further discussion before next gov meeting

Yeah! So what do you think about going the social coding route and making this a project. To build a volatility insurance DApp... honestly it would surprise me if it hasnt already been done, I know Satya was looking at oracles...

Until then... I am always happy to front ether to anyone with a milestone up!

I would like to see a commitment from our side to some payout dates as a first step. Could we say the we pay every 2 weeks on wednesday and if not there will be a penalty which we invlude in the payout? I relly like Satya’s idea and would love to see it happen in as well as soon as possible.

I would love that. We have a slow step in the fact that no one knows how to run the thing that scrapes the milestones... instead everyone wants to automate it more... (SCOPE CREEP) it just needs to work asap... in whatever ghetto way that is, and more people need to be empowered to be able to initiate it.
If we want to add more features... cool, but let's do that after, 3 people know how to run it and the repo is open and in giveth :-D @quazia Thoughts?

I would rather get the DApp working to the point where we have the option to do payouts in a stable coin (which of course could immediately be converted to ether for people who want that volatility) than invest labor in trying to build some insurance contract. MakerDAO already works as a futures market designed to ensure volatility, wouldn't we just be re-inventing MakerDAO in a way... Also, the milestone CLI tool has been open source for a long time it's just not under Giveth as it's not up to standards and isn't something we'll maintain long term. I've included a link to the repo. Should be fairly easy to get running if you have node and stuff loaded but it's not working the way I want it to. Still this is what I've been using to get the payments out. I think making the changes me and RJ talked about actually refine the scope not increase it. It's not a matter of adding new features just changing the way they work currently to require less work and go out more regularly. In the meantime, I would feel comfortable committing to a specific payout schedule and can make sure that unless there's another bug (which I doubt) the multi-send component of the payments will happen regularly.

https://github.com/Quazia/multi-send-cli

ok, so as I hear it there is no multisend issue any longer, and if there still is, quazia commits above to be available for the scraping. To me the issue does not lie here, the issue is that someone in the governance team needs to take the responsability to get the payments out every two weeks. This means someone who rrrrreally dedicates time to do get the triple check done (eg do one him/herself and delegate the others + chase those people), then chase quazia, then chase the multisig signers. Last time it took THREE weeks for the triple check to get done. I still see no need for a stablecoin, I would like to keep our dapp as simple as possible. If people are paid out every two weeks there is not a lot of risk of volatility. The Governance team just needs to assure that this actually gets done, and plz let's do this ASAP, looking fwd to the next triple check doc (why is it not there yet?)

I 100% disagree that there isn't much of a risk of volatility w/ payouts every 2 weeks. Things can drop 30%-50% in 1 day, how is that not much volatility?

While I think we can improve payout speed, there will always be a risk of volatility w/ eth. The best case scenario for payouts I see being 2-3 days (from creation to receiving payment) for at least the next 6-12 months, which is too much volatility risk for me. Plans have always been to integrate a stable coin and it will happen soon after or as part of the bridging solution.

with little risk I mean it is only a risk for that week's payment, which I think is a risk we can/should take, it's part of working in this community. volatility also happens in the opposite direction. in any case, had no idea it has always been the idea to integrate a stable coin, haven't seen that mentioned since october (when I started). Personally in any case a fan of keeping it all in eth (as we are giveth) and building on the ethereum platform.

Yeah i mean i guess thats just been implied by "multitoken functionality" which is inclusive of DAI and ERC20 Tether
When thats an option and technically feasible, then everyone can ask for it :-D... I for one will stay with ETH tho ;-)

Kriss, if you want to speculate with your payment, then by all means do so. You can keep your payment in Ether or buy more Ether with your fiat once you've received it. Your choice.

But what you want, and what we do at Giveth, is forcing people who work full time on Giveth to speculate with their income. I 100% disagree that that is part of working in this (which?) community. It's not part of it, it is a decision currently enforced by Giveth. And it violates budget agreements.

I did not agree on speculating. I want us all to build a world changing platform and not worry about our income. It is distracting, we waste time, we will loose people and we don't reach our goals. Just look at this madness in Loomio for such a simple problem.

So please stop making decisions for other people.

Weekly, bi-weekly, monthly payouts are all bad solutions if they don't compensate for volatility.

And regarding that, I'm not asking for more Ether as you suggest in your comments. What you don't seem to understand is that Ether is worthless, until you exchange it for fiat. As such the budget is in fiat, and Giveth didn't pay out according to budget.

I'm asking for Giveth to pay according to the budget we agreed on. And that means compensating. If that is solved by paying out more Ether, gold or EUR, I couldn't give a shit really. But if we don't solve this, what are the agreements I make with Giveth worth?

If Giveth can't afford spending that amount in fiat, or worse, it doesn't want to spend that amount because it would reduce our precious Ether stash - as you suggest - then Giveth shouldn't hire and reward such a huge amount of people.

This is called business, and what it takes to run a company. There's a runway, there are agreements, there's a burnrate, and there's output. If they are not in balance, one or more of these will loose.

Hey Satya, this is not a business, this is not a company. This is us building the ground layers of a new ecosystem (which is bigger than the DApp). And yes, to me this is a Community, even a strong one, and the DApp team is invited to join us.

I cannot make decisions for other people, none of us can, only thing I'm looking into is how we can keep on moving forward and avoid - indeed - all this loomio & gov craziness.

It makes me sad that when we are building a system that should take money out of the equation (by putting the admin transparently into the dapp and bring the talk back to the actual action), that the only thing that's been happening is that the people building that DApp only talk ... about money.

I live full-time off of what Giveth pays me, which is a fraction of what the devs get (or what i earned before) and also work full-time for Giveth (and more). I'm not in here for the money, I'd prefer to work on solutions and hope you want to do so too. Hence the new proposal griff wrote tonight, this came after a call we had, I keep on looking for constructive practical solutions that keep everyone happy.

Volatility is part of this space right now and it will be for a long while. This is a take or leave as far as I understand it, and you are 100% free to make that decision, nobody is making it for you.