Public Giver's reform proposal

As I understand, the contests won’t go away for good: they still will be popping out but in more organised and constructive manner (not for everithing we might need but for specific purposes outlined in the proposal and maybe a few more).

Thus, in fact, we will have both, the contests system and venture funding system, in place.

On voting system: who exactly had to implement it and why he/she didn’t do that? I don’t know, therefore I’m asking. What other promises have been broken and who made them?

Let’s come up with an alternative to this proposal if we think we know better. Also, I believe Mitja wouldn’t mind doing worthy amendments to his proposal, too.


May be, that is better to mention that it is just your personal opinion. The message of the subject is clear - kill everything! No case-by-case.

But as it is written in the proposal, there will be only the most necessary contests, WHO will determine what exactly is needed?
The voting system is only for those with at least 1 million coins, so these people will decide which contest is NECESSARY!

You are right when you say that you need to offer some kind of alternative and, perhaps, some corrections will be made to this proposal, but it will be just a game of democracy, nothing will change dramatically, unfortunately, decentralization is just a theory, how practice shows)))

And the propose are still simple, this is not to destroy the old system of contests, at least until the new system is built, and if it shows its advantage, only then replace it.
And to direct efforts to expand the community, and not only , entrepreneurs , … I am telling you as a person who works in almost all social networks and crypto forums, and sees this problem from the inside.

1 Like

The current situation with contests and their approval doesn’t differ a lot, you see: an SG come up with a contest but it still asks the GG for funds and an SG with ridiculous contests would be quickly dissolved.

Decentralization doesn’t mean ochlocracy, it doesn’t even mean democracy: it means that decisions are being made by multiple independent parties – we definitely have it now, we’ll definitely not going to loose it, if this proposal is accepted. We must ensure that the number of those parties doesn’t fall too low, though.

As I see it, currently existing SGs won’t go away in a blink of an eye: they still have work to do. It seems to me that even in case of the most aggressive implementation of this proposal, the transition would be more or less smooth.

Once again: I don’t believe that we should expand our community by paying people to become its members.


First emotional part of the prop sounds like this child still haven’t walked so lets cut him legs.

Contest system is just a good tool to solve community challenges on MVP project stage but it doesn’t work for further developing MVP. Then It should be used a grant system…

SubGovs are good themselves as an idea generator in own direction and no one head department(Community fund) cannot substitute them effectively.

But I like second part of prop where Governance Token described. This is essentially fresh and actual idea. But imho it should be implemented to SubGovs not to projects…

Just imagine that anyone can be SubGov’s member after he stakes tokens to SubGov’s liquidity and gets the ability to vote on contests.
At the same time contests winners as an entrepreneur get an voting ability to make SubGovs decisions so they brings earned tokens not to market but to liquidity where get an opportunity to vote, get passive income.


Well, this is one of the problems.
A large and active community is the backbone of any crypto project, the rest is in second place. This does not mean that you have to pay each new member, you can attract it in different ways, including contests.

1 Like

Don’t you think that contests “as is” kinda did everything they could to expand the community? Many people would tell you that the same people participate in those bloody contests again and again (which is not completely accurate but disturbing observation).

Does it make sense to waste time and express thoughts and ideas, or is this another game of “open discussion”, and the real decision has already been made (by a small circle of people who tend to make mistakes)?

And the most important question is, who will be responsible for the decision this time? (SubGovs and the contestants will not be, there will be no one to shift the responsibility to).

The idea that only holders of 1 million tokens will vote only confirms the fact that the main composition of decision makers will not change.

A public blockchain with a dead community. The technology itself is a dead piece of iron. Only the participation of a person in it gives meaning to its existence.

And in order not to seem just a critic, my suggestion is: if there is a conflict within those who now have the main power over the project, escalate it faster, do not delay. The escalation of the conflict will accelerate the process and decision-making. The longer we play “pseudo-decentralized” decision-making, the worse it will be for all participants in this process.

P.S. I love this project and wish him a speedy recovery and growth.


Personally, I could quite easily imagine combined effort of validators for participation in such voting. I might be too idealistic, but that could be quite an immensive power, don’t you agree? At the moment, regular validators don’t have any voting power at all.


At least, SGs for countries should be abolished. What value have they added rather than some videos and stickers where they asked for thousands of Ever? Do they have any practical ideas to contribute to Everscale? Doubtful. Ideas for contests have run out long ago.

Instead, I propose Everscale strengthen its online activities by making websites in different languages in different countries. Let them sync with one another to help people learn the proper knowledge about Everscale and what goes on in and out. For sure, this wouldn’t need tens of thousands of Ever as in running an SG in each country.

How Xiaomi got to where they are now? They focused on online sales instead of selling phones in a store. Online marketing is the key, including professional video production, in different languages. We must spread the correct information as to what Everscale does as a decentralized community. We are currently like a snake with 100 heads. Each head doesn’t understand what other heads are thinking, and the body is moving nowhere.
Meanwhile, people out there are not learning about Everscale while we have to work very hard to help them learn day by day. Go to each country’s portal and look up Everscale, and see what appears there. A handful of information in Asia, for example. Do we really want people to learn about Everscale while not finding any information on their countries? For instance, giving English materials and asking them to read never works, honestly speaking.

On the contrary, you can find hundreds of information written in local languages when looking up BTC or ETH. People learn more and more about them every day. Again, we must focus on spreading the information of Everscale in a much more organizational (if you wanna call it "centralized marketing, be my guest. I don’t mind only if we can help more people learn about us.)

Decentralization is a core value. Our problem is that we are trying to decentralize ourselves repeatedly inside this community while we are not having enough outside attention. Paradoxically, it makes us look centralized when people look at us from outside. Of course, we have the best technology, and it’ll even get more solid when the mainnet migrates into the Rust Node.

I propose managing the global+local information in different languages (in different countries) instead of establishing/running SGs for other countries. Rather, if we have a solid website that provides the latest information, we’ll have more potential users or at least readers who may evolve into users eventually.

Afraid of being others seeing us as a centralized organization due to such activity? Then make just one SG consisting of professional people who deal with the correct information to help people learn. They will do it as a part of the community. I know it may not be as easy as I say, but one thing I can say for sure is that the experiment with country SGs is enough. It doesn’t work. It doesn’t bring us Europeans, Asians that we expected. In a way, we look too solid as a community. It seems not anymore a structure where we can even welcome newcomers. A low value of the token is definitely one reason for that. Regardless, let’s help as many people as possible learn Everscale by all means!


I don’t see much difference with the governments of the countries. saved up money - and you’re the boss)

Excellent! Initials will no longer be burdened with the evaluation of any contest or sub-governance. They, like large investors, will only make decisions on co-financing successful projects from DGF. I fully support it.

Да сообщество об этом твердит уже почти год.
Проблема в том что вы не хотите услышать людей, и считаете свои решения единственно верными.
Yes, the community has been repeating this for almost a year.
The problem is that you do not want to hear people, and you consider your decisions to be the only correct ones.

1 Like

Предпринимательство не способно решить эту проблему, единственный способ ето разделить економика и управление развитием создав между ними открытый рынок. Я могу пояснить как и почему это будет работать если вам интересно…
Entrepreneurship cannot solve this problem, the only way to separate the economy and development management is by creating an open market between them. I can explain how and why this will work

1 Like

I like the idea of entrepreneurship, but I don’t like the proposed execution path for the following points:

1) Management style.

Regardless of whether you are right or not, you cannot turn the steering wheel so sharply and change shoes on the fly. This does not increase the trust.

Nobody wants to see a management type like “monkey with a grenade” when you don’t know what to expect in the long run. Moreover, it attracts random people who want to hit the jackpot and run on. And it scares away long-term investors. It doesn’t matter if they invest their time, their capital, or both.

A year ago, sabgovs were created for the following reasons:

  1. it is impossible to make all decisions by one group of people, no matter how smart they are. It is impossible to be literate about everything.
  2. Delegation is one of the basic techniques of good management.

Has anything changed in this sense? Tell me what.

An year ago, the sabgovs became a symbol of distributed management system. The only task for them was to conduct contests. No other tasks, no other KPI were set. And now you are saying they failed miserably. Seriously? On the basis of what objective criteria?

2) Don’t like cats? Maybe you just don’t know how to cook them?

At first, at DevEx, we did not know how to conduct contests. As a result, it looked like a receiving money by a narrow circle of limited persons. But in a year we have learned to do it much better.

  • We have learned how to invite new developers - look, in recent contests 10 or more participants take part, and many new ones.
  • We learned how to write good descriptions - as a result, we get better and better with each contest.
  • We learned how to work with participants and make the most of their competencies.
  • We have almost learned how to work with the jury - they should not be appointed, but invited, and we are approaching the idea of introducing slashing.
  • Finally, we are very close to getting a finished product after every contest - look at the recursive payment contest and http notification contest.

As I can see, we have gathered a competent community capable of solving big problems. And all this in just one year. I think this is a great progress. I am proud to be part of it.
I think that we just cannot kill everything. We should take all the best, fix the remaining flaws and scale it to all other areas.


Dear community members,

On behalf of the DeFi Alliance, I would like to express our support of Mitja’s position.

However, we would like to give some comments:

  1. The general direction of Mitja’s proposal is totally correct, but we cannot afford radical steps.

    a. All accepted proposals will stay in force; otherwise, we risk ruining the network reputation.

    So far, the partners continue the work and fulfill their obligations, Everscale will stay firm in fulfilling its ones.

    b. Subgovs shall deliver all significant commitments in terms of their roadmap until the end of Q1. However, we will closely monitor the attempts of fraudulent contests aiming to waste subgov budgets and do our best to prevent them.

    We will also appreciate it if certain subgovernances decide to return the remainder of allocated budgets to the system givers.

  2. We should think about the community involvement mechanics alternative to the contests system.

    We don’t have a silver bullet for now and will be discussing this topic until we find an optimal solution.

    We will be grateful to those community members who also contribute to the discussion and propose alternative ideas.

  3. Support entrepreneurs with grants / mentoring / liquidity provision is entirely a way to go: the Alliance has done this since its formation.

  4. We believe the failure of the subgovernance system was caused mainly due to the absence of an entrepreneurial approach in their basis. That’s why instead of reinvesting into the network development, the received funds were spilling into exchanges and dumping the x-rate.

    Any new approach to appear shall put entrepreneurship in the corner of any strategy.

We will continue close work with other Governance members to elaborate on the optimal transition mechanics for a better future for Everscale.


I agree, I think this is the main problem …

It’s good to admit mistakes. But what about responsibility? You had a great idea, you launched a platform, attracted a large number of interesting and talented people from all over the world, these people, in their turn, attracted their fellow countrymen to the community. If all this is thrown into the bucket, then it will be called SCAM, i.e. fraud!


Well said, I subscribe to every word, and in general to the entire post …
I did not have time to touch on the topic of abrupt changes in courses, and this is also very important as an element of long-term trust in the project.
And in general, the situation with the subgovs is very correctly described, they have nothing to do with the general problems of the project, this is the wrongly chosen central line, which has already been said many times.

I don’t think so, because I organized and participated in many contests, this is still the same problem of a small community and the lack of new participants.

Yes, this is nothing more than a piece of iron, but unfortunately very few people understand it. But in order to understand this, you need a successful experience in promoting OTHER crypto projects, and not just a theory.
There has never been a single crypto project that was successful only thanks to technical solutions alone, but even simple meme projects were successful only thanks to a large and close-knit community.
The ideal option would be to combine these components …


Interview with Mitja Goroshevsky about the current proposal