30th November 2022 / 09:00-11:00AM (UTC-5)
Council: Elation Studios, PG Bao, Ryan, Rebecca Zhu, Song Sjun, Infi, Sash, Jingyu, M&N, Strawberry Council, Phantz, DR
- Guardian suggestion/Reopen tg group – Mbutcho
- Elavation update – Fakhul
- Binance recovery fund – Fakhul
- Meeting minutes from Nov 16th – Cassie
1) Guardian suggestion/Reopen Telegram group – Mbutcho
- The current proposal expires soon. The Guardians are willing to continue for a few weeks while the next term is arranged.
- New suggestion received a lot of negative comments on the CR forum
- Not much engagement from the community the last few months so there is 4000ELA to return to CR.
- It could be used for a competition but the engagement is too low so it would be a waste of money
- It should go back to the CR
- Three Guardians in total – details in the proposal: https://www.cyberrepublic.org/proposals/638c466d9457330078eff539
- Two moderators
- One lead – MButcho received 5 yes votes to be the Lead Guardian
- Regarding the Telegram group being re-opened
- Low voting numbers on the public poll, and the mechanism isn’t secure.
- Volunteers can run it, following guidelines from CR/Guardians
- Guardians will have admin rights and ownership, but management is all for the volunteers as the current
- It can be described as a “hell-hole” – MButcho
Cassie – What is the additional cost for running the Telegram “officially”.
MButcho – 600ELA per month is needed. Other projects are paying 2,000-4,000USD per month for full-time moderators.
Ryan – I’m not sure it will do us any favors by opening Telegram. Another way for complaints? A lot of people are happy to complain but no-one is willing to help. There is no need to change the status quo at this point. I personally got burnt out by the constant social media barrage of vitriol from negative members.
MButcho – We are planning on reducing the costs for the current term too. So it will be leaner. And the Guardians will be accountable to the Lead. There are prospective new Guardians lining up – Ahmed is one such possibility.
Flaming occurs from time to time, but very rarely on Discord when compared to Telegram.
Fakhul – I am very supportive of the Guardian’s term. It would be good if you could add more granular info in the proposal though that covers:
- What do you define as part time – coverage regions/hours would be good to see and track?
- Can you create KPIs e.g. like the one you suggested (response times)?
- If the community or price of ELA suddenly jumps how will Guardians handle this?
- I would suggest amending the proposal to quarterly and pegging to a USD value unless the Guardians plan to increase the amount of time spent based on community needs.
- Can you clarify if the plan to moderate the chats only i.e. efforts to increase size of community will be left to other teams e.g. Info/Elavation?
- Encouraging/tracking volunteer Guardians would be very useful as it would allow you to create a pipeline of new guardians.
- My preference would be to set a minimum service level that the Guardians team will commit to and then calculate the required cost of that, the service is more important so we should pay Guardians more if needs be.
Overall it’s a thankless task so you have my support and love!
MButcho – Part-time is not to be sat there all the time. We also have community helpers and Guardians encourage others to help too. Response time of 1 hour is reasonable. No games, or other activities will be present. PT mods don’t spend time on bringing in a community, just helping those that are here.
KPIs will be added to the suggestion/proposal.
If ELA jumps to a high price – this probably won’t happen so we don’t need to worry about it. I don’t see it going up. If it does we can change the proposal and get paid in USD then that’s fine.
300-500 USD is a reasonable amount. It can be adjusted to that if ELA changes price.
The Guardians are not to grow the community, just to maintain it.
Community helper of the month is a benefit and good people have come out of this.
Fox – Maybe you don’t need to track everything, but put it as a commitment in the proposal (Guardians code of conduct). It’s a good opportunity to define some of the Guardian rules as well e.g. how and when users are banned
MButcho – I don’t think we need that, we are not corporate and we take banning seriously, action of last resort. We also discuss banning internally. For example, we banned 0 users in the past 30 days (not counting 2 scammers).
Fox – You don’t have to be corporate to have guidelines. We have community guidelines. We expect the community to follow, so why can’t we have guardian guidelines?
Client/customer service is something the Elavation team thinks we can use to differentiate ourselves from larger projects. Hence the BD team will also provide client relationship management. From research we identified this is something the Celo network does very well.
Cassie – MButcho is requesting humble funding for the Guardians. He also provided a thorough and clear financial report for the entire term, so thank you for that.
Rebecca – Support the suggestion. No benefit to opening the Telegram group “officially” to incur costs.
MButcho – Volunteers could do the Telegram group but Elastos Guardians would guide it. A new suggestion should be added for this.
Nenchy – We need a decision on the Telegram group.
Best to re-open the existing group, but clearly denoted as unofficial and volunteer-run. Although it should be owned by the CR DAO.
2) Elavation update – Fakhul
- Strategy deck is nearing completion
- EF/core teams will be consulted about the strategy
- CR will be consulted about the strategy December 14th
Cassie – Is there a date set or timeline for more information?
Ryan – EF has the strategy deck draft already. Feedback and modifications will be completed by the 13th December. The Council will have it by the 14th December.
Cassie – We should be able to discuss this on the 14th.
3) Binance recovery fund – Fakhul
- Should we apply for this? Or rather, do we even have a case for this?
- I believe Elastos has a decent chance of seeking funds, if not from Binance directly then one of the other industry participants.
- It is for projects that have low liquidity,
Ryan – I am not sure Elastos would qualify as it’s for those who were damaged by FTX. And that isn’t us. Bridges, BlockFi, Genesis, maybe. Gut instinct suggests it’s not applicable.
MButcho – If they give us money then it’s great, but it won’t happen.
Rebecca – The shame and mockery in the industry would be bad for Elastos. Why would this apply to us?
Fox – It’s not sponsorship funding. It’s VCs investing in distressed projects that have potential but want to avoid selling native tokens due to low price
4) Meeting minutes on Nov 16th – Cassie
- Will follow-up with Sash/Fakhul after the meeting to finalize the minutes with him.
DPoS 2.0 – When will it go live?
Cassie – It’s ready, it’s tested and running on testnet.
Ryan/Fakhul – Elavation asked to delay the release so we could do PR on it and try to attract new validators (end of Jan).
- Validators form the backbone of an ecosystem and our nodes need to be contributing and participating more than they are. And we need new and enthusiastic validators. Using the launch as a chance to “be early” is an opportunity to catch some attention.
- Vibrant validator community leads to a vibrant developer community.
Branding, excitement, analytics – a proper launch is needed, not a damp squib of an announcement.
Running nodes is a speculative undertaking. The mathematics changes too much to make it a “black or white” decision. The hardware isn’t that heavy. Running Mainchain only isn’t very expensive to run – and would likely be profitable. But adding side chains to this would make it not profitable with ELA in its current situation.
Being roughly break-even is a good start point. If ELA doubles to 2 dollars then everything changes. And it’s not just ELA facing the validator issue – lots of validators are struggling. But giving an easy entry point that is roughly break-even is a good early start point for speculators.
MButcho – Can running the side chains be made optional, or not?
Ryan – Simplicity and speculations more of the opportunity here. An opt-in system would need to be designed. The current system is a round-robin list for the mainchain nodes so it’s simpler to use the same list. An opt-in would require a custom solution being built.
- Review minutes
- Follow-up with Sash and Fakhul (Greg)
- MButcho to post proposal for Guardians
You must log in to post a comment.