Cake Wallet should qualify too, shouldn't it?

Those all qualify for the literal definition of a "workgroup"

um, no. a workgroup is a group within an existing organization. an LLC is its own organization, not a workgroup by definition.

Workgroups may have LLCs to make their work easier

Some might not

Monero Space does not *have* an LLC, it *is* an LLC. that's like saying Monero has an LLC. makes no sense.

"Monero" probably has LLCs

I would not be surprised to find out that members of the core team utilise LLCs to make their lives easier

would be news to me. they would still be their own LLCs and not those of Monero. anyway, there was clear community consensus that a disclaimer should be added. monero-project/monero-site #1380

maybe the issue will get revisited, maybe not.

A workgroup in the context of Monero literally just means any association of people who work towards a common goal related to Monero

Whether they get listed on getmonero.org (controlled be Core) is a question for Core

then please open a PR and ask to have all wallets and companies providing services in the Monero ecosystem listed as workgroups. that would clarify things. as it stands, there is only one exception.

Also

LLC != for-profit

If Monerujo or Cake asked to be added to the "Workgroups" list I would have no problem

ok, thanks for your input

They are groups working toward Monero-orientated goals

would you be OK with listing the full legal name of those "workgroups"?

Sure, would probably be helpful for interested folks looking to get involved

Up to them obviously, and also Core as they control getmonero.org

that's all anyone wanted. sgp_[m] lobbied to hide the legal name of his organization from the website. I'm not sure what he gains by doing that, other than maybe surprising volunteers with NDAs down the road.

The "warning" suggested in that discussion says (paraphrase) "this workgroup is a legal entity". That does not seem accurate

Oh god not this argument again pls, I already had to explain myself and Core decided it would make no sense to add

I'm sure they could've settled on a mutually agreeable "disclaimer". or just adding LLC at the end of the name. that would've been clear enough.

For example, if I am a volunteer looking to help Monero and I contribute to Monero Space to the extent that I am making many contributions I am not actually in any sense "part of an LLC" or some legal entity

The devs of Monerujo could ask for people to sign NDAs and no one would ever know

Having to keep repeating myself is exhausting

geonic: Again, contributors to the remit of "Monero space" workgroup are not necessarily involved with "Monero space" LLC

you don't. you made your case clearly in that thread. I'm giving carrington[m] the context.

carrington[m]: are you sure you want to speak on behalf of another entity?

No his point is that him being present in the workgroup channels doesn't mean that he is part of the entity, lol

I am speaking on behalf of no one

We got the entity to have a debit card, ooooh scary!

Monero is now backdoored

I'm not interested in this convo, really. If you were so OK with the LLC status of your workgroup, you would be OK with having that listed on the website

that's all.

I already explained why that makes no sense, people can read that GitHub thread from like a year ago now

try paying for server costs as a "workgroup" without an LLC or some other legal entity and you will quickly realise you are taking on all liability personally

carrington[m]: That's The Way It Should Be™️

Or how about when I FOIA'd the SoW for the IRS contracts, I could put the entity's name and address instead of my personal address, stuff like that also

Which is useful when I get death threats from people

LLCs are a critical component of any personal privacy strategy, try and buy a home privately without one today

Even Samourai Wallet has an LLC in WY

and guess what? they don't present themselves as a Bitcoin Workgroup. not sure this is going anywhere. you want to have your cake and eat it too - fine.

I don't see why we shouldn't 🤷

Everyone wins so I don't get the problem

that's the scary part..

There is no such thing as official "Bitcoin workgroups" so the comparison makes no sense

voila. maybe we're at that point already and it's worth removing that page altogether. if we're giving that additional exposure to some LLCs and not to others, then we're just playing favorites.

It's about documenting where Monero communities are, the LLC part is irrelevant

especially since sgp_[m] sees no difference between Monero Space, Monerujo or Samourai Wallet... the other two being wallet providers

Monero Space was envisioned as a service provider to the Monero community, IIRC

If Monero Dev decided to set up a side entity to pay server bills, it wouldn't mean it's no longer a workgroup

sgp_[m] you could have set up a side entity with a different name from the name of the workgroup and then there would be no confusion. you chose the exact same name for both the workgroup and the LLC so you can't make that distinction now. that was your choice.

If Monero Outreach got a debit card to pay its server bills, it wouldn't stop being a workgroup

same thing with the original "Monero Community Support LLC" or whatever it was. people told you to remove "Monero Community" from the name. that would've solved it. instead you rage quit and picked a different name

If you complaint boils down to "the LLC name is arbitrary and confusing" then you have certainly over reacted

but still kept the LLC/workgroup names identical so that one is not distinct from the other. the workgroup is the LLC and vice-versa.

If we named the LLC to MS LLC would you be happy, lol

And if so why didn't you simply say that 12 months ago

no because it's a shorthand. if you named it "Justin's Personal LLC" and made clear that is separate and distinct from the workgroup, I'd be happy

I think I raised that point in the previous discussion regarding "Monero Community Support LLC", as did many others

So you would be happy with 1234 LLC and have no other concerns, that would put the issue entirely to rest in your mind?

yes

Okay, well I'll consider that and hold you to it if that ever happens, lol

Plz rename to "geonic LLC"

as long as 1234 LLC isn't used for organizing the structure of the workgroup. picking a board, owning and transferring assets, etc. separate and distinct

one can dream, right :)

LLCs don't have boards :p

TIL it's bad for LLC's to own assets like Debit Cards

rocketlawyer.com/business-and-contr…e/do-llcs-need-a-board-of-directors :p

tx for hearing me out

Okay fair, _some_ chose to

j-berman merged

luigi1111w it's not showing up

^^^

luigi1111w: it's neither in ideas nor funding required

k

Is it the date?

never seen that be an issue

fixed

sent a small donation to test and it does not show on the CCS

oh wait

maybe I was only looking at the progress bar and it was too small to see lol

there is a balance

no I was looking at contributors also

anyway 5 contributions are there now and I'll assume mine is one of them

nioc: 13 now

9 days waiting for my post to be approved, moderators don't answer... reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/p7xcz4…nly_asset_that_does_not_control_you

SS: i.postimg.cc/x1XpbZBp/Untitled.png

link in the post: news.bitcoin.com/marathon-mines-first-ofac-compliant-bitcoin-block

It made the rounds about 4 months ago but yeah, SHUM

<carrington[m]> "If Monerujo or Cake asked to..." <- actually, Monerujo was considered a workgroup in the early days. That's how I enter it anyway.

Interesting; still asking for 179 XMR, or ~$150/hr

And donors lose the benefit of knowing how much is donated (unless the view key is somewhere) and the funds only being released on milestone completion

Correction: there is a few key giveb

* Correction: there is a view key given

Monerujo is probably trusted enough that their own fundraising will work.

Biggest issue is probably that it will get less visibility.

I don't see this as a scam attempt at all, I agree with you 100%

It will be interesting to see how this goes

It's a free market, he can ask for how much he needs & potential users can decide to donate. Sadly I can't afford to donate, but it looks like a useful project from a trusted wallet dev.

<anarkiocrypto[m]> "It's a free market, he can ask f" <- Didn't someone mention that the general fund often will fill the gap between asked-for amount and amount of donations received?

> <@anarkiocrypto:halogen.city> It's a free market, he can ask for how much he needs & potential users can decide to donate. Sadly I can't afford to donate, but it looks like a useful project from a trusted wallet dev.

* Didn't someone mention that the general fund often will fill the gap between asked-for amount and amount of donations received if it's short?

I don't know about how general funds, CCS, donations, etc. work.

<carrington[m]> "A proposal should only be deemed..." <- ☝️

Muh free market safety nets

This is clear case where a permissionless, self-hosted, non-custodial system like BCH's Flipstarter would provide benefit.

custodial can be a good thing here

it depends

so that donators can be sure that they aren't getting scammed if someone new shows up

Yes I think both permissioned and permissionless can co-exist. Some proposals are better for one than the other.

Flipstarter has had some issues with accountability, for sure.

See

Solar Freakin Roadways!

an example of the promises being greater than the reality ^

> Flipstarter has had some issues with accountability, for sure.

It's the donor's responsibility to do their own research and determine if they can trust the proposal, e.g. via previous work, detailed roadmaps, existing proof-of-concepts, web of trust/vouches, etc. Separately funded milestones or possibly an escrow system could also help.

In a game theory framework, phases or milestones provide a greater incentive to cooperate since it creates a repeated game rather than a one-shot game.

XBTFreelancer (KYC-free Bitcoin freelance website that sadly closed down around 2019) used milestones, escrow and a reviews system for trust purposes.

as far as general fund there are 2 separate things: 1. It donates to proposals at core's discretion (not typically related to shortfalls); 2. it has been used (and offered as) a volatility buffer for a few proposals where the proposer doesn't want to absorb vol risk

For (2), does that mean that the proposer underestimates the target XMR needed in the proposal? Or it is only downside risk that is hedged against and not upside risk?

I think it was used when funding audits and an exact USD amount was required, though not sure.

when will it be used as leverage to pump the price?

oh wrong channel sry

lol

Rucknium[m] I believe a small extra margin was raised, then at time of payout USD equivalent was paid. If extra, it goes to gen fund, if shortfall, it comes from gen fund

jberman 's CCS proposal has been 100% funded

🎉

The general fund didnt even get a chance to contribute ⏩️

67 contributors Raised 78.27 of 78 XMR

If I wanted to work wit the data on the contribution amounts for CCS proposals, how would I do that? There must be a view key somewhere, but I can't find it.

Rucknium[m]: c9347bc1e101eab46d3a6532c5b6066e925f499b47d285d5720e6a6f4cc4350c

view key

selsta: Thanks! But what is the general solution? How can I find it on the website for all proposals?

all proposals go to the same wallet

selsta: Thank you. And then how would I extract the data for specific proposals?

you look for the incoming balance for a specific subaddress

I see. The subaddresses for "funding required" proposals are easily available, but what about for "WIPS" and "Completed Tasks"?

this api should have all the data

selsta : possible spendings based on only address and viewkey,🧐