DOT Experts Tip for Hector Bulgarini for Proposal #379: NFT XCM
This tip is for Hector Bulgarini's Analysis on Proposal #379: NFT XCM which follows this template:
-
Abstract: what it's about, this is important so that people can decide if they should keep reading or not most likely if it's outside of their circle of competence they will move on to the next proposal at this stage
-
Prior art: how things are currently being done without this proposal being in existence
-
Projected prior art: how the future would look like without this change / innovation / addition / proposal
-
Context: how this is relevant in the bigger context, related to what is already there, what is currently being planned by other parties, what is currently being done, etc
-
Why: why is it needed? What is the business case?
-
Trade-offs: what are the trade-offs compared to alternative solutions that may already exist or may not yet exist but are different? Including theoretical only
Tips for DOT Experts are intended to reward experts who provide detailed analyses for OpenGov voters to make political decisions. DOT Experts should never express political preferences, and instead characterize decisions in terms of tradeoffs.
Background:
-
Hector did work on Trappist which concerns XCM NFT Interoperability.
-
Proposal #379: NFT XCM aims to make XCM NFT Interoperability production grade across all parachains in the Polkadot ecosystem.
Request for DOT Experts!
Ready to help OpenGov voters make informed political decisions?
Join the DOT Experts Telegram Group
Comments (6)
Requested
Proposal Passed
Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (66)0.0 DOT
Support0.0 DOT
Nay (72)0.0 DOT
I remember Hector's presentation in Lisbon Sub0 2022 on the topic of NFT-XCM, and it was fantastic. He is a reference developer in our ecosystem and has been working for us for years.
Pro in XCM and Substrate
Big Aye for him and this job!
Nay from me.
I love Hector and work with him daily. He's a super smart guy and I absolutely believe he deserves a tip for the work he's done here. However I am contesting the amount — I don't think we should set a standard of $8k~ for reviewing open gov proposals, even for deeply techincal work.
As an experiment if we allocated $300 per hour, this proposal would be worth 26 hours of work to review the proposal. Personally I would prefer to see something more like a $1k~ tip for the services.
@birdo There was a discussion on the amount that people should be rewarded for that work, and there's some solid arguments on both sides. What tipped the scale was the need to attract a lot of experts to this activity and solve the big problem that OpenGov has, and do that quickly. Plus very often these experts do a lot of work for free (make investments into knowing what they need to know), so paying this kind of work at a rate much higher is ok — Conusltants in many fields get paid much more then $300 per hour. Encourage you to join in that expert group to see the effort and thoughts put into it first hand.