Cardano serialization library in Go
This project is very frustrating.
This is the second project that I have seen proposed by this team of developers. The solution they are proposing, “We want to create Cardano serialized library for Go”, will help bring Go developers into Cardano by making it easier for them to get up to speed. Anything that helps to bring developers to Cardano fits well into this Fund’s campaign ask, “How can we encourage developers to build on Cardano?”
The impact on the community and the net benefit to the community is right on par. It can also be scalable as Cardano grows, there will be more libraries that need to be created.
The issue with this proposal and the other one proposed by this team is the lack of documented proof of experience. They claim to have a lot of experience, “Among our members are seasoned programmers with vast blockchain experience, including Goland”. They also claim to be Cardano pioneers with the first Cardano block minted on an airplane… and they claim to be trusted by Emurgo, Trezor and the Ergo Foundation. But, they offer no proof of these claims. They only point to a webpage that has links that only link back to themselves. there are no links to any of their claims.
Despite the fact that they can not prove any of their developmental skills, they are asking for a reasonable amount to do this job. They would like $6,000. They explain that they would use the money to pay 50 engineering hours at 100 EUR per hour. This includes all overhead. This is not an unreasonable amount.
They are also promising to have the library done within 2 months after they receive the funding. They have 4 different deliverables that they are going to get done in the 2 month period. This timeline and budget seems reasonable to me.
If they had supplied links to their experience and possibly to some of the projects they have worked on with Cardano, Emurgo, or Trezor, I would have been happy to recommend that they are a good risk for Cardano funding. But the fact that they have no verifiable evidence of experience or even the name of their stake pool (so we can verify their staking claims), I feel very apprehensive in recommending them for funding during fund 3. I hope they come back in fund 4 and complete their proposal with their relative experience.
Goguen Launch Global Hackathon
This is one of the great Idea proposals… but it is only an idea. The proposer says so himself during the proposal
This is a proposal that is still at the idea phase. But, the idea is very good and time sensitive so I do not fault the prosper for trying to get attention to it in this way. The idea is to run a hackathon in conjunction with the Goguen rollout / conference. The proposer would like to use / work with hackathon.com to help put on the hackathon. This proposal satisfies the impact portion of the fund, it will encourage developers to develop on Cardano.
The feasibility of the project is a bit of a trickier subject. On the one hand, hackathon.com has a strong record of preparing and putting on successful hackathons (as seen in the provided google doc). On the other hand, the proposer does not have experience in this type of event… he says so himself in the proposal. He does also say he would like to work with hackathon.com and is not concerned with taking any compensation. If this is true, it would probably be a good idea for the proposer to officially get hackathon.com behind his idea and work out a side deal so that he can be involved. That will help him gain experience in producing the hackathon and in developing a successful campaign (if it is funded). That combination would instantly give this proposal the needed feasibility score.
The last thing we need to look at is auditability. This is very much the same as the feasibility of this proposal. The proposer on his own does not list a roadmap or any metrics for success but hackathon.com does have a track record of successfully putting on hackathons and I am sure they have a tried and true roadmap for their hackathons.
All in all, I think this is a good idea. The proposer needs to get everyone on board and bring this proposal back in the next round if he does not get funded this round.
Tatum.io - Cardano integration
This project is a good example of proposal that needs a little more work but is very fundable.
When we we look at the impact of this project and if it fits in the, “How can we encourage developers to build on Cardano?”, I find that it does. We are trying to bring in Dev’s and what better way then to give them something that will make it easier to develop AND, more importantly, from a team that is already helping developers in this space. The switch over to Cardano is done almost in a hand held exchange thanks to the already familiar system.
This project helps to develop wallets on other blockchains (it looks like about 15 so far). This is the perfect opportunity to bring over other devs… The feasibility score on this project is 10 out of 10… they say they can do this and they offer proof in the form of documentation and a github repository. They are definitely committed as they have already done this for 15 other blockchains.
The trouble starts a little when we look at the auditability of this proposal… It is obvious by their github and documentation that they can do this but there is no real roadmap or budget to speak of. They just give us a number, $15,000 (which is reasonable) and nothing else. This proposal has the chance to fall through the cracks, it really needs someone to re-write it with some additional information. The community likes to see measurable steps and definition of success. I know it may be obvious to some and developers may not see the need for the extra information but when you are asking to be funded by a community sometimes you have to jump through additional hoops… If you do not get funded this round, you should definitely come back next round with a more detailed proposal.