I would like to submit for a full AZ (5,000 / 50,000) for Hypercore and Community developers to be able to access payment for small coding assignments. I would like to setup a “group” wallet where one of a few devs could release funds from the wallet.
My thought is the group wallet requests the funds. Developers perform work. They post the work completed on hypercore.one forum. One of the wallet “owners” needs to verify the work and payment can be released. A wallet owner cannot release funds to themselves. We can also establish a rate that seems fair given our current price level and we can advertise it. For example, devs will be paid X ZNN per hour.
Devs track the time, report the work, and a wallet owner confirms the work is complete and the time seems reasonable. Any one of the wallet owners then releases the funds.
I’m in favor of this idea.
Perhaps only confirmed pillars will control the group wallet? It would be nice to have multisig for a situation like this.
Do we need to discuss measures that will be taken in the event of misappropriation of funds, whether its malicious or negligence?
What sort of validation does this include?
A quick glance at the code? Testing? A demo?
Is the hourly rate denominated in dollars? Each dev requests their own rate or it’s constant for the team?
I think it’s a good idea. For future assignments, however, I think it would be better to make fixed assignments instead of an hourly basis, or at least a mixture of both.
It does not motivate to work efficiently and hours are difficult to validate. For small coding assignments, the same principles apply as for AZ proposals, only the work is much smaller and someone else is making them.
Teams like HyperCore-One could maintain their own standard for creating and promoting small assignments for developers outside of their own team, while maintaining quality control.
By encouraging well defined (fixed) assignments, both parties know exactly what is expected.