Hi, this is a message that was personally unexpected. I really appreciate the openness and the delivery methods, and positive interactions, we have never asked for anything different, we simply have not been given the opportunity to do so in the past.
We agree on every single point, my personal role will be to act as a bridge between the sfy and astar team, we can’t wait to finally be able to talk about proactive ideas for the ecosystem. I really agree with you on everything.
Just a note, because perhaps our initial proposal and the discussion of the amount of $ 30,000 were not understood
We first asked for a direct grant where the council according to certain methods (the ones you just specified are fine for us) had evaluated our milestones and then we were paid.
UCG is a measure that for the amount requested, will certainly not be able (unless there were any price explosions of the astr token) to make up for the total of $ 30,000. In 8 months we are talking about $18,000 at the current price, and honestly it would already be too long, we know that we can build and we know that we can do it in much shorter times.
So the final proposal made to all of you in an attempt to reconcile the existing measures with our needs was:
Direct grant: We commit to anticipate the work and bring to the council’s vision the milestones that we will have established TOGETHER before starting. The council will only have to promise impartiality and no emotionality, if the milestone is reached and every single point respected, it will have to commit to the implementation of the direct grant.
Every single milestone will not be connected to the other and will be indirectly protected by the ucg rewards in the event of negative evaluations of the work done.
Ucg will have an evaluation (monthly? weekly? you decide) not connected to the direct grant.
In the event that not all the points are respected at the presentation of milestone 1, but for the timing and communications ucg instead we will be in order, we will use the funds received from the ucg to be able to move forward and re-present the milestone.
Ucg will be a sort of protection both for us at sfy labs and astar so that the main funds are not wasted and the development is abandoned. In the past we had to do it for the survival of the project, since many rules changed on the fly and we had a dro of 90% on the rewards considered at the start, I remember that at the time there was no code of conduct written in the current way, and that it was not written anywhere that a project had to be necessarily self-sufficient and not consider the primary rewards. Ucg was 2 million and was insufficient to calmly plan the work to be done. Those were different times and I repeat there was no possibility of mediating the solution. But we have done everything we proposed on astar, even if on another network this must make it clear that my team has the technical capabilities to complete the work.
I also add, that in the case of both direct grant and Ucg will be paid because SFY will have satisfied the astar team in every point, part of the ucg funds will be used to guarantee a game free from any fee, including network fees, by activating a paymaster and obviously doing marketing as well as repaying the costs of servers and external services.
Every time we use these ucg funds outside of the work milestones we want to share with you everything we will do.
OPTIONAL:
We do not actually know what the community’s response will be, but if we want we can also establish together an additional milestone, not binding as a bonus to be established upon reaching a certain number of interactions and ONCHAIN transactions.
I leave this faculty and the decision on the numbers to reach to you
That said, I agree on the methods and the certainty of binding delivery, my team worked the same way with moonbeam and in fact it is the same thing. We have nothing to hide and astar as a community has nothing to lose by pursuing these methods.
Gaius, I take care of the interactions here on the forum, there are 6 other people who work on something completely different, obviously I would also like to talk about what is being built and not create useless polemics.
For me it is a very high stress to have this type of conversation, I have no intention of attacking anyone in the council, but let’s hope that the respect is bi-directional.
If a person has doubts and asks for explanations and these explanations will be given, please consider them.
What do you think is a reasonable solution for you?
If I will move on to the creation of the Milestones for direct grant and creation of the timeframes to reach them.
Then I will create milestone that will be exclusively about UCG.
In fact, according to this logic, the UCG milestones will be nothing more than the points present in the grant milestones with different timeframes, presented in a deferred manner.