It really just sounds like some people feel that one specific proposal doesn’t show value, and rather than just focusing on that specific and salient point (maybe out of courtesy) this has turned into a protracted philosophical and family argument.
I updated what I could. I’m past the 5 minute cut off to change it. I turned the post into a wiki so you can see all my changes.
I think it goes without saying that “value creation” is required. The debate is whether or not link attribution and funnels are required in order to substantiate value of a contribution.
As @Nostromo explained, not everything AZ has to be categorized under marketing, or performance marketing.
1 Like
Yes, but without funnels and attribution, you cannot prove value creation. I’m proposing something that “should” create value intuitively, and the payment of the AZ is independent of that that. If I produce high quality work consistent with the scope, I expect payment regardless of the outcome of the work. This is exactly what I want the pillars and community to vote on.
1 Like
I see, that’s unfortunate because I’m fairly certain the poll would look very differently if people were ssked to agree on whether proof of value is a requirement for AZ or not.
I cant imagine any reason why it wouldnt be and it would clarify any discussions moving forward.
People can choose themselves how they quantify value. And it is for the grantors to vote on whether that value merits a payout.
I think it has to be a case-by-case thing. We can’t extend such a broad statement.
I think it’s one of those things were we’re trying to avoid being specific on a case by case, by establishing some broad philosophy or policy. Sometimes it’s just best to tell someone specifically to take a shower or wash their hair, rather than write a company policy about hygiene. Or just give a person a spot bonus because they deserve it.
1 Like
Exactly that. It’s a slippery slope. I’ll vote no. While I appreciate the work on .org I don’t see it working for every single proposal. It would make us not agile and would be bothersome.
I’m curious why you would vote no on this AZ but yes on the story book AZ for a higher amount with similar lack of metrics and value prop.
Please help me understand what is different between the two.
2 Likes
I like @Nostromo’s suggestion here and timing is also important.
BTC interop is still a big piece that now seems underway but until it is released we should hold off on any technical papers and/or investment thesis.
Can tee up what’s known but would prefer to see a final draft after those questions are answered.
Agreed. We’ll need technical docs and at least an MVP to base the argument on. Not to mention the right list of recipients
I think this is a good idea but something coming from an anon contributor versus a well known fund in the space such as multicoin are TOTALLY different things. Nobody is going to care about a thesis unless its coming from a known analyst, credible fund, or some other already established source. So even if you wrote the best explanation for zenon and a great investment thesis imo it won’t move the needle much given everything that is already out there.
2 Likes
Good feedback! thx
I respect everything you do for this project 0x but I think the criticism by Nostromo and WAGMI is valid. Going into similar detail about the network as in the Thorchain analysis would have to be based on guesses and possibly poorly informed opinions, since we don’t really have the answers to precisely express what our network will look like in the future, due to the decentralized and leaderless nature of this project.
I would also be interested in a detailed technical paper, but I think writing such a paper will require a deep technical understanding of the network and the codebase. I would imagine it would have to be done collaboratively with developers (who would have to spend time figuring out how things work in detail), so I’d assume it would take over 40 hours of combined time to create such a paper.
What if it were written by an anon but then recognized, endorsed and shared by a well known fund / analyst, will that hold the same merits as if it were written by them?
I’m still justifying my yes vote with, the fact we may just need to get the thesis infront of them first, something more professional and less colorful than what currently exists.
2 Likes
Then the value comes from the distribution by an entity with a reputation giving it credibility + targeted visibility in the first place.
Alas, if only there was a way to account for content distribution! /s
I think we should hold off on this request. I’m rethinking all the content I create. And until I can figure that out, let’s just let this expire. My eventual hope was to create a road map for how written content could get approved where the value is unknown initially. But that will create too much drama in a time when it really does not matter.
Getting closer to Phase I matters and these discussions are too divisive and not productive.
Respectfully disagree. These discussions are very important, healthy, and absolutely necessary to ensure setting the right precedents.
The reason for the controversy and heated discussions is because people deeply care about what precedent will be set.
In this instance, it has become clear that an investment thesis in particular is only as valuable as the eyeballs and credibility it receives. It’s a perfect example of content where distribution makes up 99% of its monetary value.
Dev roadmaps and updates which also primarily serve to coordinate our open source devs (but can also be used as outbound BD content) is to be valued and priced differently, in contrast.
2 Likes
I agree with this feedback, which is why there is no need to discuss this AZ further.