Adam Dean

And for the love of dogs, if he offers you day-trading advice, don't take it, I'm literally the worst trader in the world whether it's the Real Adam Dean or one of the fake Adam Deens... #ShieldsUp #Scammer @adamkdeen <- Block and report this one plz and thank you

Yeah, we need to do maintenance/development on this piece of software, who's willing to do it, with how many people, and for what price and what are your promised SLAs and reporting requirements. The biggest missing pieces of the puzzle right now is that this ultra cool "core tech" doesn't do much of anything by itself. There are tons of other supporting libraries and tools that are needed to actually provide the dApps and wallets that give people their ability to actually do something with the chain. We've spent ~200M ADA (about 30-40 devs, no clue how many "researchers" at a contracted rate of $450k/yr/FTE, some of which seem to have duplicate roles and potentially being double booked from my analysis) from a 350M budget for this "core tech", but there's literally no clear way how we are going to support the rest of the critical infrastructure that all needs to be updated when things like Leios, etc come online. Let alone, we haven't really even begun to look at the pipelines of who's going to generate the traffic demand to make things like Leios worthwhile (takes a LOT of txs to make back tens of millions in funding).

@adamKDean @jasonappleton So it would be about structuring up proposals with clear outcomes/milestones and then bidding could open up to said proposals?

To vote down treasury proposals without a valid alternative for things we need can be like declining a heart transplant from a smoker without having one from an athlete ready to go. The beauty of Cardano Governance is ANYONE can put together a team and a proposal for funds to put that team to work to compete with any of the proposals submitted. Charles spearheaded this system knowing this was an opportunity for anyone that could do it better, cheaper faster and empowered ALL of us to play that role if we chose. Does the proposal support a team with the experience and track record to compete with IOG or any other group with proposals? How does their budget request align with the goals? Etc. Until such proposals for valuable teams present themselves, I support IOG and Charles. Firing aimlessly in the dark means victims of friendly fire, often out of spite, bruised egos or just personality conflicts. The community of millions of holders and supporters is greater than the ego of any Drep or Whale (not a reference to ADAWhale) and any one of us has the power to effectively compete with IOG or any others requesting treasury funds. We really need to do better. We can either figure out ways to work together to benefit everyone in the ecosystem, or continue chasing klout in the midst of petty grievances on social media while patting ourselves on the back as though we are doing something useful. The bear market wont last forever and now is the time to iron shit out and start taking steps in a better direction.

@mr_cata @jasonappleton Ah, yes. The first year post Treasury afterglow. Not unlike the second year post Treasury afterglow.

@adamKDean @jasonappleton It was some time ago. 1st year drama.

Sorry, which things? It's not that information is unavailable. I can go analyze GitHub and see how much work went into a particular repository in a given year and come up with a quote. It's that DReps (or whomever is deciding the budget) aren't given multiple bids from competing agencies simultaneously in order to make an informed decision based on cost, past track record, etc

@adamKDean @jasonappleton Maybe if a Proposer needs access to those types of things they can be transferred via midnight. To keep it private but also get access to critical decentralized infrastructure. Surely it could be worked out but it sounds easy me saying that.

Comprehensive, yes. Reliable? There is a very long history of budget and time schedule overruns and over promising and under delivering on the things that were built. So I'd say arguably. I've also been closer to how the sausage is made than most so maybe that's just my perspective. But yes, there's the devil we know and the one we don't to be sure

@adamKDean @jasonappleton You have to admit IOG is comprehensive and reliable. Breaking the work they do into smaller independent teams will fracture the reliability that has been enjoyed throughout. Not saying it can't happen, but it opens a whole new crate of uncertainty.

@CardanoTruth @jasonappleton Sorry, unlikely to exist that replacement team*

There's likely to exist a team with 36-40+ senior haskell engineers intimately familiar with the Cardano Haskell stack and all its idiosyncracies. Plus, the goal should NOT be to remove Charles/IO from the ecosystem, but to reduce single party reliance which will entrance overall resilience. It's far easier for 3 teams to absorb the work of one shop that might be closing than it is to fully replicate that shop/team. We need to be resilient in the cases of: people legitimately just don't want to work here anymore, people retire, or we lose an important person (engineer or otherwise) due to sudden illness or tragic accident. Essentially the classic don't put all your eggs in one basket

@mr_cata @jasonappleton I'm not sure if that was in some recent thing or not

Wait just a minute. Didn’t Charles say we need a real referral process so we could have bids for the work needed ultimately get things handed off from IO so Cardano could become less dependent? Isn’t that what we’re doing? No? … 🫠 I have no doubts there is measurable value brought to the table from IO’s team, that is clear. The actions from IO in general however, and I know you know this as well, are not in reality for the betterment of its decentralization even if they truly mean well at the end of the day.

@whaleUTXO @CashAnvil Almost as if we should spend more on pumping the price (use cases and adoption) versus more technological bs with dubious value prop

@CashAnvil imagine how much % of NCL would be left for independent devs after FEs requests if price was higher...

if $ADA price was 10x the current one, governance discussions would have been 100 times less dramatic, both because requested amount would have been way lower and because of community morale. Tell me again core token price doesn't matter.

Probably, fact is that 350M NCL doesn't stretch very far right now. There's a lot of people who would love to have a full time, paid salary with benefits on the back of the Treasury (and do the work to deserve it). You can't fault people for feeling like "Charles' Guys" just sucked 2/3 of the air out of the room at an eye watering per FTE rate, leaving breadcrumbs for everyone else

@jasonappleton IMO 80% of the issues if not more are bear induced. Nobody likes losing capital or cash flow

Yeah, that's not going to actually happen because there's far too many vested interests with large power within the system. Those same powers generally contribute little to nothing "back" to the Treasury. If we're being "realistic and pragmatic" the only thing broken was the idea that a decentralized ecosystem could maintain and build a self sustaining Treasury.

Why? Just because other projects handle things a certain way doesn't mean we have to. There's no law against a profitable and self-sustaining ecosystem. The treasury can become whatever the community decides it to be. We could even turn it into a sovereign wealth fund. That's a far more interesting future than having to beg projects to keep the lights on.

I want to say something to #Cardano $ADA. I am glad we passed 6 of the 9 proposals, all core stuff, infrastructure etc. But we didn't pass my top priority @pogun_io. @IOHK_Charles says pogun will continue but Cardano's treasury will now not get any upside revenue and he already has VC interest in the platform. That's what saying no has meant. It was addressed directly in a space. Hurts my soul. Let me be clear. Layer 1s do not survive on fees alone, not a single one, not even ethereum. They need dapps and dappchains to provide sustainable revenue. We play it safe and we get minimal results.

I, as a member, would like to see a detailed staffing + SME breakdown that would require $6M+ USD/yr to support the committees and membership if the budget admin fees are separate. I would also propose that, if budget admin is some "separate" function that members have no say or control over and is NOT feeding back as a source of revenue to decrease standalone Treasury reliance then it should be formally excised from the organization.

I would hope that 3% admin fee would be used to partially fund other activities within Intersect going forward. Seems a bit unrealistic to me that it would cost >4 million ada per year to administer any number of budgets. I would really like to see the Intersect financial report for 2025

@IntersectMBO, congrats on the 6 IO proposals getting funded! With nearly 4M ADA secured for administration services, and potentially over 5M ADA if more live proposals clear, how does this revenue impact your current >20M ADA proposal? I'd love to know what the framework looks like for offsetting the yearly treasury budget as Intersect scales its revenue model toward self-sustainability.

This is just a social problem, if the DReps like having tons of proposals being tossed on chain and then lobbied and pressured to vote for it within 30 days... God bless them. If they want to expect/hold some sort of different standards for proposers, then people have to play by those rules. We don't need to change governance or the Constitution for that to happen though, it can be an organic process.

@okhodakivskyi @adamKDean @JaromirTesar I'm not sure that you actually read my posts. I completely disagree with some forced socialization. That's why I skipped it.

If you want to reduce governance noise, make it more efficient. Consider this my official submission for public commentary and debate that we should decrease the governance action time from the current 6 epochs (30 days) to 3 epochs (15 days) so at most we only need to deal with it for 2 weeks (15 days). All the action apparently happens in the last 5 days anyway. If someone did not socialize and gain support for their governance action beforehand, they can resubmit or do it the right way.

@therealdisasm I also agree that there should be regularly expected periods of "surge activity" and only truly critical things should be expected to come outside of those. I'm just not trying to muddy the waters by "bundling" proposals here

@adamKDean It would work even better if you had a two week window every quarter.

@Rizzabeast The CC has been shown to be a floppy rubber stamp masquerading as a "checks and balances". TBH not really interested even if someone offered the pay

@adamKDean Drep, council member same thing.

@wolf31o2 @okhodakivskyi @JaromirTesar You have my vote (not a DRep)

@adamKDean @okhodakivskyi @JaromirTesar I think my "take entire NCL and pay it to DReps who vote yes" proposal for 2027 will be a hit.

@jonahkoch @VaclavJanecek1 And we're never going to get it if we don't start developing the standards and expectations now and instead kick our empty NCL can down the road another 13 months

@adamKDean @VaclavJanecek1 Yes, but we don’t have that yet. If we get good immutable negotiations with non repudiation and publicly accessible like L1 rationales settled, then sure thing. Until then it’s reckless IMO.

@wolf31o2 @okhodakivskyi @JaromirTesar Precisely.

@okhodakivskyi @adamKDean @JaromirTesar It's not mandatory, though. You could totally still YOLO it on-chain if you feel that you have enough support.

@jrv97_velazquez @emurgo_io @nateacton @phillip_pon @YoroiWallet Well, we gonna figure it out

@adamKDean @emurgo_io @nateacton @phillip_pon @YoroiWallet Yeah it’s not just to ekklesia the mobile doesn’t connect to a lot of things. Like govtools etc

Paging: @emurgo_io @nateacton @phillip_pon What's the best way to reach out to the @YoroiWallet team specifically to discuss an issue w/ the mobile app that's really hard to diagnose from within the app itself?

There's a few reasons for that: 1. Someone else sucked all the oxygen out of the room right as the Intersect process was beginning, so literally no one had the bandwidth to pay attention to the intersect process 2. "It's the way we've always done things" is a poor excuse for not seeking improvements to processes and standards. If the DReps could grow a bit of a backbone and draw their own red line that they will NOT approve anything that didn't follow the expected pattern of behavior, they can drive the changes they want to see. Maybe the DReps secretly enjoy the hostile Twitter bickering/campaigning and DMs and "things someone said in a Twitter space taken out of context" because they think it gives them a platform to gather more delegation?

The current governance process is far from perfect. It is basically just an approval mechanism. There is no real "governance" because there is a lack of coordination, context unification, and prioritization. I agree with you. The process must include the ability to get feedback and edit proposals. DReps do not have time to provide feedback before submitting a proposal. Look at the Intersect process; how few comments there are. Submitters are not even willing to use Info Action before submitting TW. They prefer to try it with TW and then resubmit.