We have first engaged in an intense 9 days of accelerated community feedback - to validate our model, to learn the players, to bait out the "feedbacks". Quite frankly - I didn't know what I didn't know: It was MYSTERIOUS.
We got your feedbacks. And now we have edited the proposal. This post will explain the changes.
The first major change is the removal of "yourFrontend/yourBackend" from the proposal. Firstly, its "done", so doesn't need funding; it was done for the purpose of establishing competence and validating the model with an example, one that now has several client sites deployed. Unfortunately it was very difficult for me to communicate how this is different (I do admit we have a lot of frontends), and despite working with both @mengao and @adesojisouljay about redhat-ing both myCommunity and breakaway-communities (both of which have unique and powerful usecases in my opinion), it seemed that this "champion" did its job and met its fate.
Budgetary Changes
I reorganized the budget. Did you know that buying Hive Power with DHF is "wrong ways"? I didn't! But now I do - I continue to "demystify the DHF", in real time and with my neck on the line. We have also increased our salaries, specified that we both have the keys and live on different continents, as well as removing the travel. If I need to travel, I can use event specific posts and @guiltyparties will possibly validate through Value Plan. Seems fair.
Paid Tools
Among the more minor updates, I was asked to add the "tools" we are currently paying for. I met with @thecrazygm and we made a list. Easy peasy.
I added this line to the Development into the Future Section, to make it as clear as possible that our intention is to work with everyone.
Finally, we added a line to our Proposed Solutions section, to make clear that this is SUPPOSED TO BE, we hope to be, a for-profit enterprise. Of course, there has been nothing but start up costs and rigamarole so far, but - vision is vision! Redhat is a profitable company, we hope to emulate their very successful model, right here on HIVE. So - no confusion.
To conclude. A word about the most common feedback that I didn't change:
11 days? That's too fast!? You should vote beg for 365 days or more and leave your neck on the line for all year so we can disrupt your project at any time for any reason we see fit!
okok no joke, the game theory behind this was one of the first posts I scoped out and started writing. I disagree with this feedback in spirit, and I will publish that post soon, its on the roadmap. But - I literally cannot change this now, even if I wanted to. Same goes for the 99k budget - I cannot edit it to say 1M or 10k - we are in play, these are the conditions of the current proposal.
I am not alien to the idea that "this is the way we have always done it". I get it. And I have a lot to say about it, long time listeners to the Deep Web3 Secrets Podcast might remember that I spoke about some of the game theory quite clearly in one of the early episodes.
An example:
User @edb came out of the woodwork on that day to give me exactly the feedback I asked for, all indexed and pretty like. It just so happens that his first feedback was this one. Notice a little trick here:
Working for a DAO is never going to be like a real job
Hmmmmm 🤔 yes of course I know that, that's why we are applying for a grant? What "real job" pays you 99k upfront? Not sure how this gets so twisted up.
But enough on that, save some for the game theory post. I will say, it has been discussed extensively amongst our team, AND additionally we hope to do a podcast "soon" with someone who actually has REAL LIFE experience dealing with grants, funding rounds, and deliverables. (If this person is you, reach out to me!)
The demystification of the DHF never stops - until next post!
