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)
Proposal Passed
3
of 3Summary
0%
Aye
0%
Nay
Aye (66)0.0 PAS
Support0.0 PAS
Nay (72)0.0 PAS
Voting Data
Approval%
Support%
Threshold0.00%
Threshold0.00%
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.