As you know, I was in this subgov since the very beginning and I had my vision on what value we should bring to the entire Free TON. Transparency, advice to the Main governance, diversity, order, and structure (it’s analytics, isn’t it?).
What I see now doesn’t meet my own quality standards:
Bullying (if you disagree with the proposal and don’t vote, you are claimed as inactive and others will eject you)
Disrespect to each other’s opinion
No open room for dialog (everyone just expresses their opinions and there is always no time for real debates)
Absence of structure in decisions (faster-faster-faster, we need to do it now)
It’s not to mention:
No delivery of analytics results to the Main governance (ones for partnerships are always late, so no sense in it)
No effect on partnerships decisions
Launching contests without having a budget on multisig
Inconsistency of the spending compared to subgov’s objectives
Total misunderstanding of how decentralization works in Free TON (e.g., off-chain voting during the weekly call: each important decision should be run on-chain and voted for by the governance members and jurors, like your this or not).
To sum up:
Transparency - failed
Advice to Main governance - failed
Diversity - failed
Order and structure - failed
I really value my time and don’t want to continue to spend it in such a toxic atmosphere.
Count this as a resignation request from governance members and jury.
To clarify, we are discussing the replacement of only the initials who are not active in the signature of the tender proposals or who wish to withdraw from the composition. For example, DeAnalytics third launch attempt.
To date, most of the partner offers have been worked out, and reports have been published in the forum branches.
I agree, the fact that today at the call we decided to add two new participants from the outside is so wrong. You need to make it a contest.
But to activate the workflow, I suggest replacing the initials who want to leave with A&S members in the inner core of the team. And to announce a competition for the recruitment of new members to the full composition.
As for the lack of influence on the decision on the partnership, to date, A&S does not have such tools. We need to work on this.
Indeed, that failed. But not because the analyst was silent, but because main gov did not listen. Just look into the topic of partnership with Merkletree.capital.
Following its launch goals, Analytics & Support Subgovernance is requesting a budget extension for the next period of its activity.
Further motivation
Analytical Sub-Governens should analyze the ongoing processes within the Free TON community and in every possible way help with structuring or advice to other Sub-Governenses (if they ask about it).
To do this, it is recommended to involve experts in the Free TON Community via contest-based model.
Statement of results
Here are the main results for the period since launch:
201 050 TON Crystals of total 275 000 pay off for contests.
SubGov has already spent more than 200k TON tokens for passed contests and is about 50k Crystals are reserved for Contest: DeAnalytics Token Distribution Program.
The Analytics & Support Subgovernance will continue to evolve to better meet the expectations of the Free TON community.
Expense estimate for the next period
To achieve the stated goals, the following budget is required for a period:
#
Activity
Comments
Expense estimate
1
Partnerships analytics
DeAnalytics Token Distribution Program,Partnership analytics automation and improvement contests
I think the number of tokens should depend on the number of partner offers. (who to analyze ? where are the partner requests?) I don’t see a large flow of new partner applications since the beginning of 2021.
The interface of the results of competitions. - It is not so important which subgovernance will evaluate the contest entries, everyone can participate who only wants.
I note that this tool is necessary for A&S SG (and the entire community), it will greatly simplify the work of analyzing and verifying payments to participants (Checking the winners).
As soon as G 2.0 appears, you can optimize the “results interface” on a competitive basis, taking into account the experience gained on the convenience of the tool.
It is not the question of which subgov launches this tool (in my opinion, any sobgov can launch useful contests) but the potential change of mechanics in general.
By the time this contest launches and finishes, we might gave g2 already, which might (or might not) work completely different. I think that it’s an issue to be addressed to Mitja.
The tool is needed - 100%. But it should be up-to-date with the interface/mechanics.
On the one hand, I like the idea of these contests, but on the other hand, I think that the data about the nodes and contests should be in the blockchain explorer. It is blockchain data and we need blockchain-centric solutions.
I would like to suggest the following approach: each SG should create its own revenue by requesting a higher amount and staking it without right to use for anything else and only using interest received from staking as operational revenue. This way SGs will not need to beg for funds each time.
One of the conditions of the contest is that the interface must be open source. In Gov 2.0, the logic for calculating places and prizes will be close to the current one. We only need to edit the code a little to make the interface work with the SMV contracts.
Gov 2.0 developers will be able to take a ready-made solution from this contest and adapt it to their needs. They will not have to redo everything from scratch, the main code (logic for calculating prizes and places) will remain almost the same.
We need to try it. (test 3 months)
Add 1-3 million tokens to the request for staking.
With the ability to use SG toko percentages for your own needs.
We need comments from the members of the main department on this issue.
I really like this idea! At least the fact that the money should not rest, they should work
Only the percent rate from staking is not very large, I think they will not recoup all Sub-governance expenses (if we are talking about 1-3 million)
