As the Atomic Swaps Contest (finishing tomorrow) ended up being more complex than it was expected, and some of you asked for additional time for delivery, I’m officially proposing the deadline extension for this contest until October, 1st.
I also ask jurors not to reject the work if it doesn’t contain all the elements requested in the proposal (e.g., only one of two bridges is done), but rather put a fair score. At the same time, the solution provided should be fully functional, otherwise, it should be rejected.
Hi everyone. So we put this to a governance discussion and unfortunately they turned this idea down. Why? I will explain.
No one knows if there will be submissions at the very last minute, because there could be several submissions that do not want to upload their code until the very last minute to keep from having it plagiarized. In fact there will definitely be at least one submission. This we know. Imagine what those who actually do submit will think? They will be angry and see it as favoritism for those who didn’t meet the deadline, which is a requirement after all. So either way, someone will be pissed off.
Although amending contests in hindsight has indeed (and unfortunately) become a habit, everyone should realize that this will be absolutely impossible to do in Gov 2.0 That function will simply be unavailable. As such, it should become standard practice – at least at this point moving forward – not to make changes in hindsight. I know, I know, I can already hear the howls and barks. But the fact is this is right.
Based on market analysis, creating an MVP for swaps is about the length of time this contest ran. The dates were not chosen arbitrarily. So for those of you who simply weren’t able to fit your submission in within this time frame, of course it sucks. And everyone agrees it sucks. But there will always be another contest that you can enter.
Again, everyone OF COURSE is sympathetic, and even empathetic to those who missed their chance; but, making any changes will only serve to make things even worse. So let’s just move on and take a lesson out of this situation in order to avoid the same thing happening again.
Thank you for the proposal, this once again shows the responsiveness and flexibility of our community. At some point, it seemed to me that there are distortions in the direction of centralization, but this step shows that all is not lost
In fact, it seems to me that we have a certain conflict of interest when one person combines the roles of a contestant and a representative of the governance. It consists in the fact that it is not profitable for the contestant to have many competitors, and the representative of the governance, on the contrary, should strive to maximize the coverage of the target audience and the number of high-quality competitive works. In my opinion, we should all think about how to resolve this conflict.
In any case, I am personally grateful for this proposal