Issue 18 - Jun 10 - Jun 29 2019
Treasury balance: 621,408 DCR (approx +15,134 DCR/month) - $21.3 million (+$518k/month) based on $34.20 DCR price
Published Jun 15 by degeri, voting started on Jun 24 (closes July 1) - 15 comments (+15)
Latest voting figures: 5,116 Yes votes, 590 No votes (89.7% Yes) - voter participation of 14%, support from 12% of tickets.
This proposal requests continued funding of the Decred Bug Bounty program, which is due to end on June 30th. The proposal provides a breakdown of operating spending from the first 6 months, which totaled $2,450 and included $1,500 bring up costs for the website. Bounty payments totaled $3,729 for 8 reported vulnerabilities out of a total of 58 submissions. The proposal requests an extension of 1 year for the Bounty program, during which time operating costs would be capped at $6,500 and Bounty payouts would be capped at $100,000. The scope of the Bounty program’s operating costs would be extended to include writeups and work defining policies/rules and scope.
Comments are supportive of this proposal, including some comments from developers which state that the program is being well run and is beneficial for the project.
Published Jun 25 by dennilovejoy, last updated Jun 23 - 8 comments (+8)
This proposal is a follow-up to the tutorial videos proposal approved in March. @dennilovejoy submitted an invoice for $7,500 in June, which is $6,750 over the budget of $750 approved in the original proposal. @jy-p explains in this comment that, after consulting with other contributors, it was decided that @dennilovejoy should submit another proposal to cover the additional budget, and that this would be standard policy going forward. @dennilovejoy has framed this proposal as having two components, $2,850 for the overrun costs of the 3 planned videos and $3,900 for an additional 3 videos explaining how to verify Decred software binaries on Windows, Linux and Max.
Comments so far are not supportive of the proposal, citing the bad precedent it would set for cost overruns on future proposals. Some comments are also critical of the quality of the videos produced, while others express empathy for @dennilovejoy’s situation. @s_ben wrote a thoughtful comment explaining how the proposal was worked on by @dennilovejoy with feedback from the #writers room, and speculating on how this could have resulted in mixed signals about whether extra work would be paid for.
Published Jun 12 by cryptoeconomy, last updated Jun 13 - 9 comments (+9)
This proposal requested $33,600 to promote Decred in a number of ways, including banner advertisements , press releases and a Decred giveaway on crypto-economy.net, several weekly mentions in Youtube videos and a newsletter. Comments pointed out that some aspects are already being well covered within the project and the others are not desirable. The proposal title originally misspelled Decred as “Decreed”—this was corrected after it was pointed out in a comment. The proposal owner then commented to say that they wished to withdraw the proposal without putting it to a vote, in response to the comments received. The proposal was marked as abandoned on June 15, making it the fastest proposal cycle in Politeia’s short history.
As noted in the last issue of Politeia Digest, @betterfuture decided to withdraw this proposal and submit it as two separate proposals. @betterfuture submitted these two proposals, and also has two other proposals in the review queue. Discussions are ongoing about which of these should be published and which withdrawn, with @betterfuture also looking at other ways to bring in external teams that can add value to the project.
Block Header Commitments Consensus Change - voting finished Jun 10 - 11 comments (+0) 13,758 Yes votes, 116 No votes (99.2% Yes) - voter participation of 33.5%, support from 34% of tickets.
Ditto Communications Proposal for Decred: Phase 2 - voting finished Jun 10 - 35 comments (+2) 9,161 Yes votes, 2,933 No votes (75.7% Yes) - voter participation of 29.2%, support from 22% of tickets.
Decred Open Source Research proposal: Phase 2 - voting finished Jun 10 - 10 comments (+4) 12,089 Yes votes, 1,312 No votes (90.2% Yes) - voter participation of 32.4%, support from 30% of tickets.
Decentralized Exchange Specification Document - voting finished Jun 11 - 11 comments (+0) 12,171 Yes votes, 198 No votes (98.4% Yes) - voter participation of 30.1%, support from 30% of tickets.
The EXMO exchange added Decred pairs (DCR/BTC, DCR/RUB, DCR/UAH) on 18 June, fulfilling the main deliverables of their approved proposal. Prior to this, a post on reddit had observed that EXMO were behind schedule, followed a few days later by a tweet from EXMO thanking the Decred community for its patience.
Decred’s part of the Trust Wallet integration is nearing completion. Approved by voters in march, this proposal split work between the Trust Wallet team, which was tasked with the core wallet integration, and Decred, which was tasked with integrating with and hosting the Blockbook server Trust Wallet uses to host transaction data. Core wallet integration has been completed by Trust Wallet, and Decred’s Blockbook integration is nearing completion), with one final issue remaining regarding how to represent Decred’s unique PoS voting mechanism in Blockbook data.
From Jun 10 until Jun 29 on Politeia there were:
- 3 new proposals submitted, 1 proposals started voting, 4 proposals finished voting.
- Proposals that have finished voting have an average (mean) turnout of 31.3%, with a total of 51,738 ticket votes being cast.
- 37 comments on Politeia proposals from 18 different users (public keys).
- 100 up/down votes on comments from 18 different voting users (public keys).
About this issue
Snapshot for this issue based on this commit.
Content for this edition was authored by @richardred with contributions from @s_ben
Also available on medium.