Hear, hear, @scott. I appreciate the thought behind this and personally I am in agreement with this proposal.
@ParkerS Agreed. There were too many side conversations and misunderstandings. Big lessons. A lot to learn from this one. I am proud to see the community voicing honest opinions, putting it all out there, and working through it … and believe it will make us stronger in the long run. One team one dream.
@kiluminati I know this has been a painful process for you. I am sorry for that, truly. It was tough to read your reply but I appreciate you sharing. There is still a lot of support for what you have started from so many people involved in this project. I hope you can see and feel that. And I hope that we can all put this behind us.
A complex situation that was dealt with suboptimal communication.
Clearly, we are in the early process of solution providers and it wasn’t handled properly. Thanks for the pioneers for going through this. The FAQ has been updated with the new information and clarifications and it will be updated when new information comes along.
I think what @kiluminati wrote in this thread is very important and must be taken into account.
What @scott proposed above seems fair and logical.
It seems clear to me that we shouldn’t go back on what was voted: 50% for Foldit shouldn’t be renegotiated as it was voted on in the blockchain.
But as we discussed here, we need to have further notions on this whole solution provider subject and we need to set a clear template for future solution providers and make sure that the vote and conditions are clear for anyone voting.
As @kristof said: “we would not be able to execute on the DAO request because we don’t even know what to execute on.”
This is clearly a good point. So let’s make sure the DAO request needs are as clear as possible.
What has been brough here is that we need to know, for any solution provider, the following:
What are the Terms and conditions
This also implies the liability conditions
The support provided for the solution
If the solution is open or closed source *
Also if the solution is client-based or not can have an impact here
What will be the marketing provided with the solution
What is the percentage (up to 50%) wanted for the solution
* @kiluminati pointed out that Foldit is completely client-based. That is indeed very good for the users as it ensures great security.
If @kiluminati agrees to provide information on the terms and conditions as well as the support for Foldit, we could have a new vote and then have the project move forward.
I think one thing is clear: the whole community really appreciates and thinks highly of Foldit and @kiluminati’s work. Foldit definitely has the merit to be a solution on the TFGrid.
TF should also provide, when possible, the help necessary for Foldit to be up to date with the new TFGrid release.
As @ParkerS said, “we’re all moving towards the same goal”. Let’s thus communicate clearly and work together to make TF as good as can be.
We haven’t heard from @kiluminati either in this thread or by Telegram message since I made the proposal. Without his input and agreement, we can’t move ahead.
Since it’s so silent around this problem I would like to share my take on it. Not for the sake of sharing but in the hope this can be resolved and rectified so we can lift the worrisome situation around the Foldit DAO vote.
I helped creating Foldit by making the flists, some features and testing. All credits definitely go to @kiluminati since I cannot write code, but just to state my stake in the project.
For me personally there is only one issue at hand, that is the blockage of the Foldit DAO vote on the Mainnet TFchain. In this DAO vote farmers had to choose if the Foldit UI has the right to get a working solution provider ID or not, a threshold of at least 25 votes was set. All the requirements to have the right to a DAO vote have been met, since the vote itself was created on the TFchain. The end result was that Foldit was approved by the farmers for a working solution provider ID. All the active DAO rules at that time were respected before and during the DAO vote. After the vote, the approved ID is until now never provided to the requester, Foldit.
After this incident, almost all public conversations around this where about many different subjects, except for the fact that a DAO vote has not been executed.
All these different subjects like legal liability, open source, support … all make very much sense. The lack of these requirements around a solution provider need to be resolved as quickly as possible. It makes no sense not to have these issues resolved and written down in detail. So to be clear, I’m all pro and even want to help develop them.
But, for me personally, we can not continue discussing if the original community approved DAO vote is not honored and executed. This is a serious matter since its all about trust. For me the value of a DAO vote becomes questionable if the outcome is not guaranteed. If it’s not guaranteed, it’s not how a DAO was intended to be. But rather a survey system about what the community would prefer happening around a particular question.
In general, a decentralized autonomous organization (DAO) has incredible potential to create trust less economics. Since I as a participant know the other side has no choice then to respect what has come out of a vote. So respecting the result that comes out of a DAO vote is essential for it’s own existence, if not the result has no value so why participate in the first place.
The same goes for blockchains. Once something is on a chain, it’s there forever … unless the operators fork or even revert a chain. If that can happen, most of the real (none technical) values of a blockchain are gone (Remember ETH and ETH Classic).
Everything that is proposed and talked about how the solution provider should look like can still be implemented even if you respect a previous DAO vote which lacks these conditions. Why not respect the Foldit DAO vote result to then launch a new one the next week/month to re-work the conditions. If the community passes it, then what harm has been done? Even less harm then now, since then the DAO would have been respected and a very different atmosphere would arise around this problem.
Currently, all the momentum around Foldit is below 0. The current version of foldit.tf is the result of many hours spend in free time. It was fun, learned many things and there are many more ideas to add and improve. I shared the knowledge gained when making flists in this community guide.
Unfortunately, I can not find the logic or motivation to continue on Foldit in this situation for reasons above. Everything around the solution provider has been very disappointing until now.
I sincerely hope the situation can be resolved in the proper way. I care deeply for this project and the values it brings because there are not many like it, maybe even none.
There is so much utilization to be brought to the current grid and especially at this time I think it would benefit the project greatly. That goes for any project that would bring more utilization.
I know for me it was a lot more then a little bit. This really put an continues to put a sour taste in my mouth.
I hold myself to an extremely high standard when it comes to taking ownership of problems and finding solutions. For me this organization has to do the same at all points for this project to be sucessful.
I really think this break down has nothing to do with 50% rewards, terms of service or any of the other things it was attributed to.
Cut and dry, something was presented that threatened the stability of the status quo and was unexpected. In a hasty reaction to that, the organization let fears about the down side of what could happen completely obscure the possibilities of what was in front of us.
At the core of this issue is whether or not the DAO votes actually mean anything or are they just a way to take a community opinion poll.
I think there’s is only one clear roadmap to putting a bandaid on the bullet hole in organizational trust we have left and that is to issue the solution provider I’d exactly as it was voted on. At the end of the day if that doesn’t happen it invalidates everything about the grid being decentralized or not subject to big money investments.
It doesn’t matter if it’s HPE, Google, trusted caretakers or kristof himself. No one should be able to arbitrarily veto what the community decides by vote.
If something passes that may be damaging the answer is not to bin all the rules and everything we stand for, the answer is to present the problem to the community, open a second dao vote to make changes to the first and explain why it’s important it’s improved.
This entire situation became a failure the second we decided we could not trust the community to fix a problem in a way to support the life of the grid and decided that big brother (kristof) needed to step in and issue directives from the throne with a ceo stamp next to it.
Their were multiple victims of bad decisions here the individuals that created foldit and brought it to you out of nothing but good intent, and your entire community who lost a significant amount of momentum and trust.
I encourage everyone involved in this situation to watch this ten minute video and ask yourself are we making decisions to play an infinite or finite game here?
Apparently this discussion could not continue without me giving my opinion, which saddens me. I don’t think this problem is about me or Foldit but about Solution Providers in general. Why all debate here has ceased, until I give my personal opinion about this “compromise”, is beyond me. But fine, here goes:
I have to take on all legal liability for the use of Foldit or to release the source code: Several issues with this:
It continues the line of thinking that releasing the source code provides any security guarantees or legal “safeguarding”, and it does not. It just doesn’t. I have explained this already. It is a logical fallacy and it’d be nice if someone would address this argument instead of ignoring it.
Foldit is dependent on lots of services coming from Threefold. These services have their issues, I’ve had lots of instances where these went down. It’s also perfectly possible that nodes go down, without any HA functionality or backups. I will not take full legal responsibility for things that are beyond my control.
Even if we ignore the previous two points, I wouldn’t know where to start in writing Terms of Service to account for all these things. Would Threefold help me with this? Do I have to hire a lawyer? Do I need a legal entity or would I have to start a company? I have no clue.
Establish how Foldit users will get support, so we know how to direct any queries that end up with our support team: Come on guys… there’s a Foldit Telegram channel that is linked on the website, several Threefold people have already joined there, I have answered questions there before, I have answered every problem any user has asked me in private as well. But if you need me to explicitly state it: Foldit support can be found in the #Foldit telegram channel…
Vote again with the 50% share clearly stated, and with the understanding that this will not be the future norm for all solutions: I’ve tried making my position about this topic clear, it seems we’re just not seeing eye to eye. No, I don’t want an exception for Foldit and do a revote. I want everyone to be treated equally and for the rules and the community to be respected, it’s really really simple: Either approve the original DAO vote that you vetoed, or repeal the SP for everyone, including your own Playground and Zonaris. You can immediately do another vote where you cut Foldit’s share to 0.01% if you like. I don’t care anymore, it’s not about the money, it’s about the principles that Threefold supposedly cares about. I know none of these things will happen anyway, and if it did, it could easily be overridden if management throws another tantrum. DAO votes have become suggestions rather than enforced rules.
I haven’t responded for a while because I’ve been busy in my personal life (Foldit is a hobby project) and I’ve completely lost all motivation. From broken promises, to bad or no communication, to outright skewing of the truth and sophistry, Threefold has given me absolutely no reason to ever put trust in them again. Even if I agree to all of this, are we going to debate these issues for another few months? Is this thread going to dry up again and get ignored unless I take the lead or make more concessions? Even if I agreed to it all, and ignore the loss of income during all these months, and draft up a Terms of Service taking FULL legal responsibility, even for things beyond my control, and we do another pointless revote – what is stopping Threefold from just changing their minds again? Nothing. Without the DAO votes being respected, this is just another typical corporation where the community holds no power. I’m completely disappointed and demotivated and I’m not going to put more effort into a project that is cleary unprofessionally managed and doesn’t adhere to the very principles it claims to hold dear: Community driven development. It’s a facade. A shame, as it’s clear that there is a hugely talented group of developers and general staff behind Threefold.
I’m sure there are people who think I’m being dramatic now, or that I’m the one blocking progress here, because I haven’t responded for a while or because I’m not enthusiastic about this compromise, or because I’m giving off “negative vibes”… That’s fine, I’m not here to convince you that I’m not the problem in all of this. Please don’t let my cynicism block progress on developing the concept of Solution Providers. Continue to debate it and define it, nobody needs Foldit for that. I was still considering picking this project up again, maybe, after I processed some of my frustrations. But then today, another punch in the face:
So it seems that while Threefold has been blocking my (community approved!) application to become a SP, they have instructed their developers to upgrade Playground in a very specific way – Playground does have an approved SP ID by the way, and got it without any of the procedural bullshit they’ve thrown my way. What are the upgrades you ask? Some of them are clearly lifted from Foldit, like tooltips, showing deployment cost, showing locked tokens, and a better login procedure. They even explicitly state this:
“We simplified the login/connecting the wallet flow with almost the same experience the foldit project provided, it seems like everyone liked how it was done”
This is where I draw the line. Threefold vetoes my approval, comes up with new demands, and meanwhile is lifting features from the very project they’re blocking and using them in their own project, which they did grant an SP ID. And some people wonder why I wasn’t willing to share my code. I’m not going to compete with the company that clearly holds all the power in this relationship and is willing to continue to stoop lower and lower to get their way. I’m done. The only way I would even consider continuing on this project is if they drop the veto, but they won’t. They just don’t care. I say “they”, but I mean “he”. I’ve tried refraining from ad hominem and pointing fingers but I’m fed up.
To all the people who have shown support and appreciation, thank you very much, it’s been a fun ride. To all the lovely Threefold staff, who have all been friendly, courteous, and at times even apologetic to me: Thank you too, I appreciate all your effort in making this work, I know this is beyond your control.
@Kristof: I hope you find a way inside your head to listen to the community and the people who want nothing but the best for Threefold. A good leader listens to their subordinates, he doesn’t think he knows best on all things. Humility is key. I wish you luck in making this project successful, as it seems it’s mostly in your hands.
I want to first address a few points, and then propose a way to address what seems to be the core concern.
Our position is simply that we are willing to be more flexible in how we handle the question of ToS and liability when working with an open source project. Open source is only more secure to the extent that anyone reads the code and verifies that they are actually running the code they read, yes. While it actually can be a legal safeguard, that’s not the point here. We’re just saying that any solution provider who wants to stay closed source should take responsibility for what happens when people use their solution.
You don’t have to use any of the services we provide. These are all open source and you can run your own instances. We offer publicly accessible instances both to serve the solutions we offer like the Playground and Terraform provider, and also for the benefit of the community.
As for nodes going down, that’s the sort of thing you would handle in terms of service. The main liability that needs to be addressed for an interface is what happens if someone loses funds after entering their private keys into the software.
This is all your responsibility as long as the code is closed source. That’s our basic stance here—release the source and we’re willing to help.
If this were really, true, we wouldn’t still be here having this discussion. The voting process hasn’t gone according to the “code is law” expectations that are maybe fair when the term “DAO” is in use, for sure. Everything that we’re trying to do with community involvement and governance is still more or less untested. Mistakes and messy situations are going to happen.
One way I see the tension here is between community driven and commercial forms of decision making. We are essentially inventing a new way of organizing a project that can balance these inputs. A “typical corporation” wouldn’t be inviting a discussion here or trying to find a compromise.
Something that hasn’t been discussed so far is that solution providers can also be removed with a DAO vote. One of the concerns that’s been somewhat lost in the mix here is that the voting window for Foldit was perhaps too short and some farmers didn’t get a chance to vote. When we talk about rules, this is something that’s been ambiguous and can definitely have an impact on the outcome.
So while I didn’t want to suggest this before since I think it’s a step backwards rather than forwards, here’s an idea that could settle some of the process based concerns and restore a sense of integrity in the DAO:
Create a motion to remove Foldit as a solution provider. Then we will know whether a well mobilized and informed vote supports the original motion. If the motion to remove is rejected, it can be seen as equivalent as taking a second vote to approve the 50%. If the motion passes, then the veto will have been upheld via the established process and we have a chance for a fresh start.
Your right we can actually probably open any DAO vote we want.
Where exactly can I find the WRITTEN AND PUBLISHED guidelines for a farmer to open a DAO vote, that will be presented to the community regardless of if the foundation likes the topic or not?
You can see the addresses of the council in Polkadot UI. There are currently only six and I actually don’t know who they are. The on chain veto did not occur in this case.
Some stats on the Foldit vote, for anyone who’s curious:
26 farms voted ‘aye’
Of those, one farm appears to have 0 nodes
215 nodes belong to those farms that were created before the vote ended and were active during or after the vote
That’s 7.7% of the nodes active on the grid at the time
These nodes contain 9,700 CRU, or 15% of the total active on the grid at the time (voting is acutally weighted on CU and SU, so this is a simplified look )
So basically we have a system in place, that was entirely ignored in every way possible.
We have a council but it’s unknown who they are and we haven’t actually asked their opinion.
While those are shocking numbers on participation, there was only 27 votes for 3.10 and I’ve never seen a vote with much participation.
Are we seriously still acting like we’re on seperate side of this argument. Where the hell has kristof gone has he obsconded to an island to usurp his need to respond to his community for a month and ten days, I’m done talk about this it’s a waste of breath. You have zero power to fix this and the only person that does is refusing to even be a part of the conversation.
I think it’s time that an aspect of this discussion is brought to light that we’ve been quiet about so far: @kiluminati is a family member of someone on the ThreeFold team (brother of @linkmark, if I understand correctly). When reviewing the voting data yesterday, I also noticed that ThreeFold’s own FreeFarm was used to vote in the passing of the Foldit proposal. If we’re going to view this situation objectively, these facts should be on the table.
Therefore, the idea that Foldit is a completely independent project that’s getting unfair treatment from ThreeFold isn’t the full story. On that note, the “50%” we keep talking about isn’t actually a lump sum going to one wallet. It’s split 45/5 between two wallets. Who owns that other wallet? Can we really say that this vote was done in full transparency? Did you really know what you were voting for?
This vote was blocked due to legitimate concerns about how the process was conducted and what it could mean for ThreeFold’s organizations if it was allowed to stand. Originally, I felt the same as some of you, that it wasn’t right to invalidate what had been done through the on chain process. But if the original proposal was valid, why should it be a big deal to vote again with clear information? I also initially reacted that we should also vote again for Zonaris in that case. But is anyone really raising questions about the process or outcome of the Zonaris vote? Or the Playground for that matter? Really?
I also thought that @kristof was being overbearing. But if you know Kristof, you know that he’s the person who has given the most to make ThreeFold happen and who cares the most about its success. Not for personal gain, but for the potential this technology has to make the world a better place, especially for those who need it most. That’s why I listen to him, not because he’s the “CEO”, and I will gladly stand my ground in a disagreement, if I think the best interests of the project are in jeopardy.
We all have much more to gain by working together, rather than working against each other. Frankly, I’m ashamed by the tone of some of the comments on this topic here and in our public chats. It’s natural to feel frustrated and to have some negative opinions about what’s happened. I won’t ask anyone to suppress negativity, but let’s please treat each other with a basic level of kindness.
This is really just beyond me at this point. I don’t understand how any group of people can collectively be this bad at communication.
I for one could care less if someone got help from their family members who work for Threefold to master a new technology that WAS poorly documented and the only people that can help rarely do.
I continue to not see at all how foldit is increasing the grids liability more than anything else we’re doing. I mean we don’t even have a way to stop someone from hosting illicit/illegal material on the grid after the cops find it and expect farmers to charge on with that risk. What was the actual risk here? And if there was risk why wasn’t the established protocol for vetoing a vote take place.
I really feel like the big picture has been lost here to infantile bickering about fears without basis.
I will personally own every word I’ve said, everyone here knows full well I will move mountains to help anyone on a mission to help and grow others. In the same breath I’ll drop that mountain directly on someone if I feel like they are mistreating a huma. Doubly so if I feel like I was lied to and conned into personally encouraging the person being mistreated to be in that situation.
I had the conversations privately in the days after where all the reasons were laid out for me. I still have those conversations and they do not match with what’s being said now.
I’m even fine with the Freefarm voting, though I admit that shouldn’t have happened, foldit was built with good intentions and if we had partnered and supported this young man, instead of expending all the energy we had building walls, I really think foldit could of changed the grids future.
I will gladly publish every single conversation. I don’t do secrets and I don’t play games. Kilu did every single thing we had been begging for, for months and then we let him down because we were scared of… becoming as decentralized as we always said we wanted?
I have zero problem with adjusting the percentage
I have zero problem with SPs needing a tos
I have zero problem revoting.
But what’s the point if we can’t own the mistakes in this process and admit that it was not the decentralized way to handle the problems. I’m sorry but, this veto and the authoritarian attitude taken since, destroys everything the grid claims to be. At this point any company that openly accepts third party hardware for hosting on and treats them as vendors is just a decentralized as the grid.
We can fix percentages and policies, help people figure out a tos, hold any vote under the sun, but upholding the way the seal of decentralization has been broken here, is something we can’t take back. Look at the lines here, this is insane, nearly everyone in this thread in a moderator or qualified to be one.
We are clearly not communicating. Kilu wants to help us, he wants to be safe doing it, we want Kilu to help us, we want him to be safe doing it…. What is the actual issue?
People are putting their actual lives into the development of technologies on top of the grid, this is not easy. And there is no amount of money that can replace knowledge, initiative, and determination in someone dedicated to your cause.
The grid may be a technology built on machines. But it will only live as technology supported by humans. You did not just veto a vote. You crushed a human beings success and made someone feel unwelcome and unsupported who did nothing but show up in support of your success. That is the only crime here.
Your team is literally so engaged in this mission that they are taking this home to their families, spending their off time doing more work, leveraging their relationships in support of this goal, and you appreciate that by accusing them of having I’ll intent to…. Steal open source secrets? We are still open source right?
This isn’t about solution providers. It’s about people and recognizing them as human beings.
.
Wow @scott , wait a minute. Are you really going this route and then at the end say to treat each other with kindness? Can you please explain what you are suggesting here. From how I understand your reply you are maybe trying to say that I try to uphold the vote to enrich myself? Because I own the 5% wallet and have voted for the Foldit DAO with the Freefarm wallet? Please elaborate on this so we know what you mean by it.
Transparency? As much as you want, ask away:
Yes, Kilu is my brother. We grew up together and have a nice list of previous project like Foldit we did together, it’s fun doing these things with a family member. We work well together. It was never a secret, I have checked this internally if it was a problem and got replied with ‘no it’s not relevant’. All parties involved also know this.
Yes, I own the 5% wallet that is part of the 50% that was requested in the Foldit solution provider request. I work full time for Threefold and did everything Foldit in my spare time. Isn’t 5% reasonable? Should that be 0? Or does it show I’m trying to fill my pockets here?
Yes I voted with the Freefarm wallet ‘yes’ on the Foldit DAO. I hope you won’t make me explain this one since then I would have to talk about how things work here internally. And I don’t mean totally bad or anything dramatic like that, but there are serious issues yes as there are in every team. We just need time to resolve them all, and we will resolve them all. I can already say that I’m the only one voting yes on all votes in general that are created by Threefold, as has been instructed to me (by Kristof, in person, here in Belgium. I asked him if it was ok that I voted yes on DAO votes with Freefarm). If I would not vote with Freefarm in general, no Freefarm vote would come (and you know why, see last 3.10 DAO). The atmosphere at the time was also all ‘amazing’, happiness and people supporting the idea. I checked with the team if the vote should happen or not and the consensus was easily reached at that time. All of this was also not an issue then, things needed to go fast as always (rings a bell?).
@scott I expect you to explain in detail what you meant with your last insinuation. Since its very much directed to me and I feel very much insulted by it. I have nothing to hide or nothing to be ashamed off, I can say I’m even proud of my contributions to Threefold. You left me no choice then to react to this.
Where was it written at the time that the ownership of both wallets should be revealed or included in the GEP/DAO vote? Or where was it defined that communicating that to the farmers should be done by the solution provider requester and not TF who makes the DAO vote? So your saying Threefold made this mistake themselves? What are we even talking about? Are we going over each little detail we can think of to throw at each other?
I wanted to propose the following, that could satisfy both parties, a compromise. But then the chat discussion happened. Still, a last attempt to find a middle ground and get both parties what they want:
We approve the original DAO vote
That same day we create a new GEP to revote on Foldit with the following conditions:
– Drop the solution provider % to one wallet and to 25%
– Define how Foldit will give support
– Explain this 25% will not be the case for future solution providers
– Foldit creates a ‘TOS’ that clearly states all of this is experimental and in beta, to use Foldit at your own risk. That Foldit nor Threefold can be held responsible whatever happens to your fund and/or workloads.
This way:
we establish trust because the original dao vote was respected
the % was dropped by half to show upholding the original dao vote is not about any profits or profits %
Support is defined as proposed earlier
As requested before, the revote mentions that this situation will not be the case for the future
Since it’s required, writing a sufficient TOS will take months. To be able to move on for now, we can clearly state the use of Foldit is at your own risk.
Thanks everyone for discussing this hot topic. I think everyone here wants the best for ThreeFold. In my book, heated exchanges are good if we end up having a better situation for all. I think we’re getting there! We can do it.
I think what @linkmark proposed here is an excellent step in resolving the situation:
“”"
We approve the original DAO vote
That same day we create a new GEP to revote on Foldit with the following conditions:
Drop the solution provider % to one wallet and to 25%
Define how Foldit will give support
Explain this 25% will not be the case for future solution providers
Foldit creates a ‘TOS’ that clearly states all of this is experimental and in beta, to use Foldit at your own risk. That Foldit nor Threefold can be held responsible whatever happens to your fund and/or workloads.
“”"
For the sake of putting in this new GEP all the parameters mentioned in the overall discussion, I think it should also be stated the two following points:
Foldit is a client-based closed source solution where data stays within the user’s browser
For the moment, Foldit does not plan to have active marketing. In the scenario where Foldit would add marketing to its solution, a new vote would be done to reassess the % of the TFT Revenue stream at this point.
Thus, the new Foldit GEP vote could state the following:
Foldit Solution Provider GEP (Draft)
Foldit is a client-based closed source solution where data stays within the user’s browser
For the moment, Foldit does not plan to have active marketing. In the scenario where Foldit would add marketing to its solution, a new vote would be done to reassess the % of the TFT Revenue stream for the solution.
Support for Foldit users can be found in the Foldit telegram channel. *
The Foldit Terms of Services (TOS) will, in essence, be as follows:
All of Foldit is experimental and in beta. You should use Foldit at your own risk. Foldit and Threefold cannot be held responsible for whatever happens to your fund and/or workloads when using Foldit.
A more complete TOS might be developed later on. In this case, another GEP vote would be done to reassess the situation.
The Foldit GEP vote should be open for 30 days, in order to make sure as many farmers as possible can vote. **
For all the parameters given above, Foldit is asking for 25% of the TFT Revenue stream.
* As I understand for now, the Foldit telegram channel is a chat where you need an invitation to get in. Thus, it would be good to create a distinct public telegram channel for Foldit support (e.g. https://t.me/foldit_support). This should then be updated in the draft above. (Or the current chat could also be made more “publicly accessible”.)
** Perhaps 30 days of voting window would be sufficient. We can adjust if needed.
Of course, this is a draft. I invite the solution provider, @kiluminati, to adjust as he sees fit.
@kristof, do you think this draft is correct from ThreeFold’s perspective (e.g. in terms of legal requirements)? If adjustments are needed, please let us know. Of course, I invite others to speak their mind and share their thoughts too. It would actually be greatly appreciated.
Also, I think it could be clearly stated that the revenues are split into different wallets, if this is still what @kiluminati and @linkmark want. I think that this is a choice that belongs to the solution provider. The goal of those new/adjusted “guidelines” is to make sure farmers know what they are voting for. This means, the information within the smart contract of the solution provider should be clearly stated in the GEP forum post. Based on this present fruitful, but nonetheless laboursome, discussion, I wrote this post to summarize the solution provider discussion, and the current reply here was based on this post too.
I can’t help but think (and hope!) that the hard work we all put here (especially the developers of the solution) for this solution provider will lead to an efficient and clear solution provider process.
