View All Discussion

Treasury Proposal: Funding Request for Continued Production of RMRK Substrate Pallets

3 years ago

Greetings community!



We are the RMRK team and for ~1.5 years we have been developing rmrk-substrate-pallets with an intention to make 2.0 NFTs natively accessible across all layer 1 Substrate chains.

To this end, we are requesting funding from the Polkadot Treasury to support the realization of this vision. We are recently accepted into the Substrate Builders Program and with resources newly available we have outlined a 9-12 month plan, complete with deliverables and program milestones, aimed at achieving the full potential of our vision.

Our proposal is available for your review here, and please feel free to leave your comments and feedback below so we can answer your questions and make adjustments to our proposal accordingly.

Thank you so much, Dotsama fam, we look forward to reading and integrating your feedback!

Respectfully,

RMRK Team

Comments (24)

profile
sultan.dot
3 years ago

but RMRK doesn't go to parachain

3 years ago

This is Csaint here, and I think there is a slight misunderstanding. RMRK isn't going for a parachain with this request. They are requesting funding for a pallet that can be used by any team in the ecosystem. Parachain teams that are helping build this or are interested in using this include but are nt limited to: -Phala -InvArch -Astar -Acala -Kabocha -Ajuna -Imbue They are looking for funding from the Polkadot treasury to help create an Open Source pallet that can be implemented everywhere. This allows for much deeper integration, improvement in fees, interoperability, and much more. This is a benefit for all of Polkadot, not just one team. Imagine Polkadot having the best NFTs on the planet baked right into the runtime of all the parachains...talk about marketing

3 years ago

Approving this proposal is wrong in so many ways I can't even list them all. It's a test of governance principles at Polkadot.

  1. Treasury does not exist to finance a full product - other NFT pallets in the ecosystem (we have a number of them) were financed by teams and their investors, the biggest grant was for a PoC for $30k. Should they all now apply for reimbursement of their costs as their investors would demand?
  2. Amount is outrageous, simply put.
  3. Given that Bruno is often on the Treasury Council, this request is morally questionable to say the least.
  4. Team is not capable of delivering the pallets - they are working on them for over a year with very little progress and many mistakes.
  5. The team raised money a number of times, and has wasted it. As a minimum the proposal can not be trusted to be delivered by paying in advance. Asking for the full amount in advance simply means ecosystem will get the half baked deliverables.
  6. Proposed scope is large, but won't be enough for using them - apps need a lot of tools to build (wallets, block explorers and indexers, minting, etc.).
  7. Will the Singular be open source and when? Financing by Treasury for a single marketplace (Front End tooling for it), a commercial entity, is not what Treasury is for.
  8. Financing this proposal by Treasury when we already have a number of parachains for the NFT capabilities will deeply reduce any appetite by investors to support parachains in the future. It's simply unfair competition.

3 years ago

This is Csaint here and I am not certain if you have taken a deeper look at the proposal. This is for the entire parachain ecosystem and an implementation of RMRK that can be used by any team. Teams that are specifically interested in this implementation include: Phala, InvArch, Astar, Acala, Kabocha, Ajuna, and Imbue

I will go one by one and hope to answer some of these questions from my perspective at least

  1. What's to say how the treasury is managed? There is 250 million in DOT there at the time of writing, and there has been DOT spent for hackathons, research funding for Messari, and much more. The treasury has been heavily under-utilized in my opinion and should be invested back into the community for initiatives such as this that are developer focused, open-source and for the good of the entire ecosystem

  2. It's hard to know costs, but developers are not cheap these days to say the very least. I wonder if there is some set of standard pay or average pay that can be referenced by the team?

  3. That is a fair point, but he can abstain. He also did not choose to be on the council, but was voted in by the community. At least that is how it is set up.

  4. The team has been working on many things. Phala has also been helping a tremendous amount to my knowledge. Time and effort costs money and funding of these efforts allows for the hiring of devs for something that contributes to the entire eco. They have been selflessly contributing open source code for years now behind the scenes and I don't see why this should not be funded to bring something forward for the good of the entire eco.

  5. Taking the emotional part out of it, having milestones makes sense. It doesn't make sense that being paid in advance always results in half-baked deliverables. That's not always true, but an opinion.

  6. There are other projects out there that can contribute to those aspects like Subsquid, Subscan, Talisman, etc. They already have RMRK extrinsic version implemented and could implement this version as well

  7. Singular doesn't really have much to do with this other than the marketplace pallet which, according to the proposal, would allow for the NFTs to be added to any marketplace. Not just Singular

  8. I disagree on many levels, but that's a different story

I'm open to discussion! I hope this doesn't come across as fighting. There are some good points in there

PleaseLogin to comment
    Polkassembly - Treasury Proposal: Funding Request for Continued Production of RMRK Substrate Pallets #1549