Cosmos-wide funding of Interchain Info through current Spark IBC campaign
This is NOT to discuss this prop as it specifically related to the Cosmos Hub & it’s community pool, that will be a separate post. For now we want to focus on and get feedback for the general gameplan & ecosystem wide ask. You may find the draft with original formatting on @TendermintTimmy ’s twitter or on GDocs, found here: Community Pool Request Prop - Google Docs Below is a rough template for a prop to be placed on each chain listed. At that point, [chain name] and [requested amount] will be replaced with relevant details for each chain. These are all individual props, to be taken as is on a 1:1 basis with 50% of the ask from each chain being reserved to incentivize content specific to that chain and the projects/communities building on it, with the remaining 50% allocated to general ICI development and upkeep. Overview Built by Spark IBC, Interchain Info (ICI) is a truly multi-chain & chain-agnostic hub for information and tooling to make navigating the rapidly growing Interchain easier for both new and old users alike. At Spark IBC, we believe that, currently, “Cosmos” and the greater Interchain are extremely fragmented, as communities, educational…
Excerpt (1193 of 7921 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
This could be $440,000 of funding. I think this is way too high considering sparkibc.zone advertizes that only 494 usdc have been raised. Also, I don’t really see the point in the application since you’re saying it isn’t trustless but alxandriacosmos has a similar product that is free already and trustless.
I believe that supporting a truly chain agnostic effort to provide a informative tool for existing and more importantly new users would be extremely smart for us to do. As we all know, access to truly entering the Cosmos ecosystem can be confusing for most. Navigating it and staying up to date with everything happing within our ecosystem is even more frustrating for the majority of people here. We have no place or one point of contact to pull information from for the Cosmos ecosystem. Interchain Info would be that place…
I believe that the easier we can inform and educate people the easier time we will have on boarding new users and developers.
$20k or less per chain is nothing in comparison to the value that this would bring to the greater ecosystem.
I encourage all chains to dig further into what Interchain Info is building and striving to accomplish. Unfortunately links and images are not allowed here to better illustrate things
First off, I appreciate you weighing in! Thank you. As you’ll see in the pictures we aren’t able to add (nor links which is frustrating) the total comes out to a little under 250k, and we really don’t expect it to pass on every chain. As for the lack of funding from small donors on Spark IBC, it is both expected, and exactly why we’re pursuing this route as well grants in additon to them. Spark IBC, aside from ICI, wants to help facilitate funding & provide support for chain agnostic efforts of all kinds. One of the things we want to offer to those looking to use our platform is this sort of multi-chain fund sourcing thing. Spark is different from launchpads and similar platforms, in that it really is just donation based, anything extra is on a per-case basis. Bc of this, the majority of efforts that come through spark will probably funded mainly through grants, community pools, and similar, as it’s not realistic to expect a projects full funding to come from strangers generosity. Also, when noted that it isnt a trustless system, I meant the incentives program, which by any and all account shouldnt be as it could easily be gamed and abused. The platform itself however, is…
Excerpt (1197 of 2072 characters). Read the whole post on the forum ↗
I strongly support this prop. I think it’s a highly reasonable ask that shouldn’t materially impact any token prices. This is a much needed resource, and this method of funding and executing is aligned with Cosmos’ decentralized interchain ethos.
@TendermintTimmy - the forum does support links and images for established users - we’ve just had to set the trust level fairly high otherwise we are inundated with spammers.
I’ve set your trust level to allow you to do links and images so feel free to edit your top level post.
The site banner reminds people to tag me if they need link permissions. @Crypto_Tank - I’ve adjusted your account’s trust level as well so you should be able to do links and images too.
Thanks for your patience and understanding!
It sounds like a cool development. It also seems to try to limit the impact on the cooperating chains.
I am a bit lost though on why these chains. Can you elaborate a bit more on that?
I see some projects in the list from which I fail to see the progress (can also be a shortcoming of my own) and other projects who do release stuff but are not involved in this overview.
Thank you so much Lexa, i was wondering if it might be something like that. I’m sure i speak for tank as well as myself when i say it’s much appreciated!
Could you be more specific on the chains your curious/skeptical about? Would be happy to speak to them.
In general though, these are the chains that either (and in most cases, both,) have a community pool substantial enough to support a 1% contribution (with the exception being Injective,) and that we believe will benefit from Interchain Info themselves.
Additionally, we feel many of these community pools are relatively or completely untouched, and that our offering is a perfect use case for them as it’s truly chain-agnostic and beneficial to the entire interchain.
Projects from which I miss updates (but as said, can also be due to a lack of a proper platform to follow projects in which someone is less involved):
- Agoric
- Band
- Carbon
- Cheqd
- Fetch AI
- Injective
- Kava
- Kujira
- Persistence
- Secret
- Sommelier
- LUNC
- Terra
Projects like Stride, OmniFlix and BitCanna which have a community pool and are releasing tools are not included.
So I was kinda curious why this specific selection 
All the chain listed, with the arguable exception of LUNC are 100% doing stuff. Even Band which im pretty hard on usually.
As for why stride and omniflix arent included. I didn’t know omniflix had a community pool seeing as the FLIX token isnt even live? Does it have other assets in it?
Stride, if pingpub is correct, has a measly community pool of only about 4k STRD total, and similar with BCNA, their total pool value is about 8k USD.
Ok, so this means that there is not only a max cap, but also a minimum threshold?
The proposal is only a certain % of the community pool, not that a project also has to have a sort of minimum level to contribute.
Which brings me to the point where I think you can make a real difference if you would not only include projects which are “rich”.
Well the idea isn’t that non-rich projects arent included in what were building, far from it. It’s just that the effort that would go into getting a prop through for 80$ worth of funding total, just isnt viable. If you have something specific in mind though, we would love to hear it
We really do want to be as inclusive and chain agnostic in everything we do as possible!
The question is; do you want to go for an opt-in method?
Where for example a chain itself can take care of arranging the proposal and the community pool spend to an address indicated? That would remove the workload for arranging that from you guys
And that way you might make a real difference for the complete ecosystem where “rich” and “poor” chains are both having access to the same tooling.
Hey,
We gave feedback on your call on twitter (https://twitter.com/lavender_five/status/1625714147420696576) but in general:
Seems like a reasonable amount to ask for a cool idea to get content about the cosmos tech stack in a better place.
Id say funding per item instead of funding per minute or word is a better approach and i would like to see that switch
I am quite sure funding videos only if uploaded to your channel first will be a dealbreaker, please consider changing that. Be the platform that aggregates instead of the issuer. Allowing people to build their own content brand will lead them and therefore the content hub to succeed long term.
Goodluck with this proposal
