Vitwit's Funding Proposal: Supporting Public Goods - Resolute

Change log • 2023-09-26 Created initial post • 2023-10-10 Update with funding terms and forum link • 2023-10-10 Update with funding account, vesting terms and amount Summary Who are we? Vitwit is a technology company specialized in Blockchain and AI, with over 9 years of experience in building and scaling products. We are firm belivers and contributers to cosmos-sdk and ecosystem since 2018. We have a team of 25 engineers working on multiple projects and partners in cosmos ecosystem. We are securing 20+ cosmos based networks with our validator arm called Witval. We have built blockchain explorer called Aneka for the cosmos ecosystem. What is Resolute? Resolute is an (opensource)[ GitHub - vitwit/resolute: Resolute ], feature rich interchain interface for the Cosmos Ecosystem. The main objective of this project is to become a single place for interacting with any appchain that uses the cosmos stack. As the intro from the repo says in the tone of cosmos, Resolute is an advanced spacecraft designed to travel through the multiverse, connecting all Cosmos sovereign chains. What is the ask? We are submitting this grant proposal to request funding for the…

Excerpt (1190 of 8449 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Seems reasonable IMO. I think should elaborate more on where the funds are going directly and expense the costs out per product. But this is work outlined is important for UX.

Hey @anilCSE yup, I’ve seen Vitwit team members all over Cosmos and I’ve got a favorable impression of your team for sure. I would like to provide the items that would move me toward a really easy yes on this: • revocability - since this proposal requested years worth of funding, I think that it makes sense to make it revokable if folks don’t feel they’re getting value. • extension - once the proposal is revocable, I think that it might make sense to Make it for a longer time. This is feedback that I shared with informal and hypha too but due to the size of their request, I don’t think it was actionable feedback for them. What if this was a years worth of development and 3 years of hosting and maintenance? • liquidation schedule - I think that currently a lot of hub stakeholders are concerned about the value of ATOM, and that they would likely like to know if this is to be immediately liquidated into Fiat, or if there are other plans for it. • documented request for ICF funding or licensure to AEZ - in discussions about hypha/informal funding, it seems to have been concluded that the ICF should be funding products that serve all of Cosmos, and that the hub should…

Excerpt (1197 of 1807 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Great initiative! Only when the tech is accessible, it can unleach its potential.

As a long-time contributor to cosmos-multisig-ui I know how complex it is to build end user facing applications even for the most basic mutlisig coordination. The upcoming migration to Sign Mode Textual will make this flow significatly more complex. Adding Feegrant/ Authz/Groups into the mix is a big level up.

Happy to support this initiative from the CosmJS side of things.

My only question is about deployments and free use of the software. Do I understand correctly both frontend and server are Apache 2.0 licensed and allows custom deployments? This may become critical in case certain jurisdictions don’t like users to access defi products. Do you provide a default deployment under the vitval.com domain and how long?

Jacob said some main points

1. How does this benefit the $ATOM/AEZ community EXCLUSIVELY?
2. There is a lot of cool stuff but does it really bring REVENUE for AEZ more than using that amount to support Stride, Neutron…
3. $Atom should/must be sold OTC if it passes. (Even $Juno can be sold via OTC)
   Please find clear answers to the questions above (only use/default $Atom as UI fee, focus on product development for AEZ…) or you should submit it to ICF.

Thank you for building tech on Cosmos, it’s even greater if building a real business

I’m no longer in favor of Apache 2.0 for work funded by the cosmos hub due to the notion that the ICF should no longer support the hub’s research and development initiatives.

Value preserving license for community funded work Signaling/Text

Earlier today I was having a conversation about funding the work of informal and hypha. I am broadly but not unconditionally supportive of this move. Both informal and hypha have done great things for the hub and I’ll just give a couple of examples: informal ICS hypha white glove service for consumer chain onboarding Additionally, both teams have been helpful to Notional in security research. I have some questions, too: funding split between orgs Current team sizes Metrics …but I’m…

The ICF has a purpose of supporting public goods. The cosmosome has a purpose of doing cosmos hub stuff.

On the other hand, the foundation should be mandating Apache 2.0 and move to a much more transparent state of operation.

syndicatemike:

Seems reasonable IMO. I think should elaborate more on where the funds are going directly and expense the costs out per product. But this is work outlined is important for UX.

Thanks for your feedback. Yes, we will elaborate more on fund utilisation in subsequent response in this thread.

simon_warta:

My only question is about deployments and free use of the software. Do I understand correctly both frontend and server are Apache 2.0 licensed and allows custom deployments? This may become critical in case certain jurisdictions don’t like users to access defi products. Do you provide a default deployment under the vitval.com domain and how long?

Thank you so much @simon_warta for you feedback.

Both the frontend and server code will be licensed under Apache 2.0. We might request that credit be given to Vitwit as the primary developer of the project, but this won’t be a mandatory requirement. We’ll host the default deployment on vitwit.com for at least 3 years (though we don’t intend to remove support in the foreseeable future, this serves as a formal commitment). Additionally, anyone is free to use it for custom deployments.

In the future, if our cosmos community introduces an exclusive license other than Apache 2.0, we would be open to adopting such a license as well. All we ask for is financial support and a bit of appreciation for our work

Thank you @jacobgadikian for your response and feedback.

jacobgadikian:

• revocability - since this proposal requested years worth of funding, I think that it makes sense to make it revokable if folks don’t feel they’re getting value.

Sure, this really makes sense. We will update the proposal to include revocability. Thanks.

jacobgadikian:

documented request for ICF funding or licensure to AEZ - in discussions about hypha/informal funding, it seems to have been concluded that the ICF should be funding products that serve all of Cosmos, and that the hub should be funding products that serve exclusively the hub. I’m not certain I agree with this stance but I think that it would be an interesting and valuable exercise for you to speak with ICF about funding this.

Over the past 3 months, we reached out to ICF for support on this project and other work we’ve been undertaking. Unfortunately, we didn’t receive a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’, nor did we get any feedback from the team. We then wondered, should we seek support from the community?

Who did you speak to?

Was there an application process?

I’ve been told that there is no application process.

Sorry that you share my experience, as in my opinion it is more harmful to waffle and be non-responsive than it is to simply reject a proposal.

Since you have either been rejected or ignored by the ICF, it makes perfect sense to make a funding proposal.

Thanks @jacobgadikian for your valuable feedback.

Here are the details we are looking to add to the proposal. Please feel free to share your views so we can update the original proposal with these details.

Funding Terms:

• CosmosHub community is authorized to revoke the funding anytime if they feel we are not adding value to the ecosystem on this topic and can consider to clawback all the vesting tokens from the funded wallet/associated vesting account.
• The following vesting schedule sounds fair for us and we believe it’s reasonable for the community too.
  • Cliff is 6 months from the date of funding and vesting schedule is 30 months (total 3 years vesting schedule)
  • 60% of the tokens are vested periodically over next 6 months (post cliff, every month) as we are forecasting to finish the major development work in the first year.
  • Remaining 40% tokens are vested periodically over other 24 months, which will be used for development support, infrastructure and maintanance.
  • The support comes for 3 years in total, 1 year with development & support and 2 years with pure maintenance & support.

Thank you for your inputs @w3bqq ,

Agree that, the Resolute is not EXCLUSIVE for CosmosHub but we definitely believe that it adds great value for the hub in terms of taking core feature offerings to wider audience. All the CosmosHub features are prioritized over any other things on Resolute. We are committed to improve the UX for general users in Cosmos, and believe that, it in turn adds value to to hub.
3) Yes, we are not going to sell these tokens on regular markets and definitely chose some better solutions like OTC and/or market makers.

anilCSE:

Agree that, the Resolute is not EXCLUSIVE for CosmosHub but we definitely believe that it adds great value for the hub in terms of taking core feature offerings to wider audience. All the CosmosHub features are prioritized over any other things on Resolute. We are committed to improve the UX for general users in Cosmos, and believe that it in turn adds value to to hub.
3) Yes, we are not going to sell these tokens on regular markets and definitely chose some better solutions like OTC and/or market makers.

Glad to hear about the OTC deal.
The BIG question is “How much”, sir? If you have been following, the Cosmos Hub community has complained countless times about this issue, so I think you should apply after the $ATOM Tokenomic change, otherwise, it will be a waste of time in dramas.

image386×771 6.48 KB

CosmosHub doesn’t have support to create new periodic vesting accounts via a clients, though it is available in newer versions of cosmos-sdk. Due to this, we are changing the vesting schedule into two accounts.

• Account 1: 40% tokens, continuous vesting for 1 year
• Account 2: 60% tokens, continuous vesting over 3 years.

It will come to the same 60% tokens being vested in 1st year as mentioned in the proposal and remaining 40% tokens will be vested continuously over next 2 years (2 and 3). We are still formally agreeing to the terms of vesting Cliff for selling tokens and community can verify it.

Proposal seems reasonable.
Nice app so far.

Question:
Is keeping track of milestones and progress via the README from GitHub - vitwit/resolute: Resolute or is there another place?

Yes all the tracking regards to milestone progress and regular release updates will be available on our Github repo. We’ll also push release updates on twitter.

anilCSE: • CosmosHub community is authorized to revoke the funding anytime if they feel we are not adding value to the ecosystem on this topic and can consider to clawback all the vesting tokens from the funded wallet/associated vesting account. Glad to hear that we’re adding more emphasis on tooling and UX here. But at this time, I’m leaning towards VOTING NO . Here’s why. The plan is elaborate, but lacked specificity and accountablility. We could use the SMART approach (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant and Timebound). The scope is massive, utterly difficult to measure success, has dependencies that aren’t Attainable, it’s so widespread whether or not it is even Relevant, and there are no Time-bound milestones. Questions: • Are all of the above scoped work attainable? Can we break this down to one set of work over 6 months at a time? Can we have milestones, amount funded for each milestone, rather than over time and cliff (sounds like big tech RSUs) will be a better measurement for success. • Is this more of a retroactive funding combined with future work? I know of several projects that have been running even prior to May 2022, some dating back to…

Excerpt (1198 of 2518 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

I’ve had a similar experience interacting with the site. Very shoddy work. Not a good look if you’re asking for large sums of money

Strongly against the proposal:

• The current website is not looking very useable and more clunky
• There are already better free tools available in cosmos
• The ask size is oversized.
• Public Goods should be funded via AADAO
• No value capture for Cosmos Hub → looks like value extraction

Hello @jacksteroo Thank you for detailed feedback and these are really valuable questions. I will try to answer them clearly below. • There is a mentioned timeline of 1 year for entire development. But we can may be split into multiple small milestones for better visibility and tracking. Open for ideas. We are planning to create WGs as soon as the proposal goes through so we will have feedback sessions around priorities and UX flow. • No, this ASK if for the future work only. We understood the greater value that Resolute can provide to the community when building current solution. This proposal added all the features that can be built and offer better UX. Switching between 10 different tools for different tasks will definitely kill the UX. • As mentioned, we are considering to have WGs for feedbacks & improvements • It doesn;t weight anything in the proposed budget. It was requested by the community members before so just added here to the list • We didn’t add Google Analytics thinking to do-not-track users. But we will definitely add that if only those kind of numbers speak • We work with multiple projects and help them with onboarding, development and advisory. We see…

Excerpt (1199 of 1691 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

'ICF should fund products that serve the entire Cosmos, and the hub should fund products that exclusively serve the hub

Your work so far is low quality. You and your team inspire no confidence from community. There are literally free tools like teritori that have completed your roadmap. You are out of your mind if you think any sane person would fund your proposal.

My thoughts: • Milestones – you didn’t answer the question on at which months will have what scope delivered. 1 year for the entire development is likely unattainable when the goalpost placements are unclear. “Cross chain NFT transfers” for example, between which chains and which marketplaces? “Transaction builder for advanced users” … this is a developer tool, yet you have a UX that’s for DeFi users. They’re entirely different UX’es for different audiences. Also, WG should be solicited prior to submitting the proposal (and it took me few mins to understand WG meant Working Group) • Utility – it doesn’t need to be Google Analytics, you must have some web server logs (minus those from any monitoring pings, if you have any), or even see how many users approved to use the smart contracts, or volumes that went through Resolute. Those will be an indicator of utility. Doesn’t need to be huge, but it’s a signal for the current less-than-ideal UX. • Marketing – “seamless experience” will be building a much better mousetrap. I fall into this “trap” all the time too coming from a dev background. It’s good to see that you’re listening to multiple projects for their input. I’d love to…

Excerpt (1196 of 1689 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗

Thank you for the proposal. Some thoughts:

1. Who is the target market of Resolute? I never heard of Resolute before, but maybe it’s just me
   But kudos to this proposal, I know now. Good marketing
2. I agree with some that the amount is too big for 1 year development. Have you done some research on what features that might be needed for Cosmos Hub? Maybe something that can be helpful to grow AEZ/ICS users. It will be easier for you to gain support from the Cosmos Hub maxi if you follow this path.
3. For that kind of amount, we need more details on the spending.

Thanks.