I think we need to have an honest conversation about the Monero CCS, and how much usefulness it truly serves in volatile markets

If money is held in a XMR long position, then there are volatility risks that need to be eaten up by someone

Either people pay more for the proposal by adding a buffer, eg: 20% more USD value. This makes every proposal more expensive to the community

Or they keep without a buffer and the community takes on even more downside risk

If XMR drops in value, then someone will be discouraged to continue completing the contract. They will most likely leave or ask for more money

If XMR rises in value, then the community gets none of the upside for taking this risk

The indirect "upside" is if someone priced a project *less* in XMR for the ability to have this upside, but this isn't what happens in reality. The downside risk is more significant than the upside potential

* The indirect "benefit" to the community is if someone priced a project _less_ in XMR for the ability to have this upside, but this isn't what happens in reality. The downside risk is more significant than the upside potential

The Monero CCS allows some long-time contributors to convert to be paid up-front immediately so they can hedge. This eliminates volatility, but it also introduces risk to the donors. For trusted people this may be a reasonable amount of risk, but it's not for everyone

The Monero CCS could in theory allow conversions to stablecoins like USDC for payouts later, but this would need to be set up

Today, I really wish more people used the MAGIC Monero Fund, which allows for fixed contracts of $X USD to be paid for X, Y, Z milestones. You still have accountability for work done, you don't need to pay a "volatility buffer," donations are tax deductible, and you completely eliminate the downside.

Are there strict timelines for CCS work?

The Monero CCS as-is really needs to be the LAST choice for people if the MAGIC Monero Fund isn't available to them ONLY, imo

If not, it seems like implementing them would pressure people to consider alternatives if they can't handle the volatility

You shouldn't be able to just sit on a CCS if the price goes down

no strict timelines usually, but that doesn't really address the core issue

Imagine if xmr had been converted to a failed stablecoin at the CCS approval time

<sgp_[m]> "I think we need to have an..." <- honest conversation: it's just feedback loop without any hedge, it would be better to care about work quality than about volatility hedging

It would be interested to state if you want the $ or Euro value and a hedge is then placed. You would then sacrifice any gains if price goes up

The community CCS is very simple mechanic. The larger the project, the larger the timeline, the more Monero involved, the greater the risk. Perhaps some of the larger CCS's should be broken up into smaller pieces.

downside of that is fundraising risk. will enough money be raised in a month? etc

it's hard to attract talent if they need to look for funding frequently

This is what futures contracts are made for. Maybe we should see how they could be used?

And then, when the going gets *really* rough, the contracts somehow just announce a "freeze", like Celsius did now ...

If only we had a regulated cryptocurrency futures market 😳

But yes I get your point

It might be helpful to donors to know which price point the CCS project will halt production before they donate

I would a futures contract in the wild west world of "crypto" is nowhere near a futures contract in the heavily regulated, heavily controlled world of "traditional" finance

The main disadvantage of MAGIC is that it requires KYC from the recipients of the grants.

Rucknium[m]: yeah that's stupid for a small CCS project

I mean, unless someone likes freely giving that info out

Isn't it always like that? Every possible sensible way to finance something like Haveno comes with a set of tradeoffs.

I don't think somebody will be able to sell me the idea that a solution without any tradeoffs exists. Or would have existed.

<sgp_[m]> "it's hard to attract talent if..." <- "attract talent" hahahahahahaha

Yeah, we all here are so incredibly dumb, stupid and naive, we will never attract any.

rbrunner: sarcasm ?

<Encore> damn, you're quick

I think that should be pretty obvious, but of course here are different viewpoints.

But anyway, seems to me, Haveno's problem that we discuss here is not that the project did not attract enough talent.

<Rucknium[m]> "This is what futures contracts..." <- in theory, sure, people could lock in a futures contract. But they would generally need a set date for those, which limits options

hehe, options :p

sgp_: I agree. It would put projects on a more strict schedule, which could be difficult given the nature of software development and research.

right

it could help in some cases, but not all

<sgp_[m]> "Today, I really wish more people..." <- As a MAGIC grant recipient, I am very happy with the payout structure. Paying out X dollars worth of monero per milestone overtime ensures fair compensation. I also really like the idea of holding CCS funds in a stable coin… as long as you choose one that wont go to 0

Note that grant-earmarked funds in the MAGIC Monero Fund are held in actual USD rather than stablecoins.

So no stablecoin risk there.

Rucknium[m]: Would this be possible with CCS? I feel like no.

sgp_[m]: There's perpetual futures that can be used though

Members could have also sold some of their own XMR to hedge

Though 750 XMR is a large amount

dEBRUYNE: perpetual futures are just spot basically

dEBRUYNE: definitely not realistic

Can you elaborate how they are basically spot markets?

eh, maybe that's not entirely fair in this specific context. it takes a bunch of liberties in setting it up though which would be real burdens in practice (primarily the need for additional capital)

Just my suggestion. Have an option for the person completing the task to opt in the XMR be converted to USDC/(choice of stablecoin) at the time of CCS approval. That way they can take the XMR or the stablecoin equivalent at the time of the approval. Mind you, the approval date is different from the completion date.

* Just my suggestion. Have an option for the person completing the task to opt in the XMR be converted to USDC/(choice of stablecoin) at the time of CCS fully funded date. That way they can take the XMR or the stablecoin equivalent at the time of the approval. Mind you, the fully funded date is different from the completion date.

* Just my suggestion. Have an option for the person completing the task to be able to opt into the XMR converted to USDC/(choice of stablecoin) at the time of CCS fully funded date. That way they can take the XMR or the stablecoin equivalent at the time of the fully funded date. Mind you, the fully funded date is different from the completion date.

<xmr-ack[m]> "As a MAGIC grant recipient, I am..." <- two members of MAGIC fund board and 1 participant are advocating for USDC; facepalm

I don't think CCS funds should be held as stablecoins by default. It should be the choice of the person completing the task.

entry1: This is how it currently works with the MAGIC Monero Fund. The person or organization that submits the grant application specifies how they want to be paid.

I think stsblecoins for ccs is asinine but thats just me.

Modify plowsof WAAS. Allows payout immedietly

entry1[m]: that choice can be fulfilled externally, it is neither required nor sufficient for proposals to function properly

Rucknium[m]: Agreed, that should be the way its done. People who can't afford or don't want to take a chance with fluctuating prices (whether to their benefit/detriment), should be able to specify at the time of fully funded if they want the donated XMR to be a stablecoin payout if they choose. It would be an extra step, but could help attract talent.

Seraphis will allow collaborative funding in theory. However, koe has recently said that the way he is writing the wallet proof-of-concept software does not allow collaborative funding. Collaborative funding basically allows an XMR amount threshold to be specified and then if and when the threshold is reached the payout occurs immediately. This all occurs on-chain.

Ok, that sounded like a contradiction. I meant that the cryptography (I think) would still allow collaborative funding, but another wallet implementation would be needed.

BCH's Flipstarter already works like this, using AnyoneCanPay transactions.

A dynamic xmr value makes sense. But it should work in both directions.

At payout time, haveno had raised more USD than they had asked for

If using realtime values, they would have stopped collecting xmr early. (I'm only using haveno as an example).... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…cb17e7aff0fde115c518201b0c287ab893d)

My 2.5c

yall seen that rick and morty episode where like the intergalactic currency goes from being worth 1 of itself to 0 of itself? and like eryone starts killing themselves and whatnot, the whole ccs thingy would be fucking hilarious if usd fiat goes to 0 😹

like, i get that when providing any type of work, one would rather have that sense of security about the value of their own work, but in the FOSS space, not eryone do be getting paid at all, it definitely be an idealist mindset but there's way more people doing it not to pay the bills but for the sake of better software and whatnot even if it's for free

And if people arent completing the work because the value dropped.. sounds like a scam to me 🤷‍♂️... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…4ee1d3bfc4d2889319f9d8bbed4b0abb444)

there's like a difference between donations and a salary but the ccs taking the approach that donations are a salary

well, with haveno engine and whatnot, there'll definitely be that constant incoming cash flow so i guess by then, it definitely could be considered as that but until then, so far that might have been a bit odd to not make a difference between the 2

> <@ofrnxmr:monero.social> And if people arent completing the work because the value dropped.. sounds like a scam to me 🤷‍♂️... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…d250182879e2d13ded54ddaa47b914d6903)

spacekitty420[m]: For haveno, only an example, they were maybe 30xmr away from "fully funded" but according to the USD value that they initially requested, they had enough to consider the proposal funded.

No comment on haveno ccs progress. Only that they thought they received more USD than they asked for

something that could be more fair than the usd pricing would be the mining difficulty, it's more stable, like, price is fluctuating, sure, mining tho

like, to generate that exact amount through mining, comparing back from when the ccs was made and today, it probably didnt fluctuate at all (block reward slightly lower as we just entered tail emission but it was already pretty close to it back then and nethash is about the same)

so maybe, instead of basing the ccs off usd value, maybe it should be based on mining difficulty, just a thought x)

well i mentioned that couple years back too but who even cares tbh, they just want to cash out in usd anyways 😹

Whilst it’s not ideal to be converting to stablecoins... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…c2f06bce25c9fb132770bd2083ba49a3bb5)

> <@john_r365:monero.social> Whilst it’s not ideal to be converting to stablecoins... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…1d3e6ec8ef5a7e2ffb8880579e6b0c610e9)

Right, but it would be nice to have a mechanism to do this for CCS too. If possible. It may not be possible however

sgp_[m]: on paper the CCS seems a lot more flexible and open than MAGIC. Maybe that is just how both are portrayed, but I feel the CCS welcomes (or at least should) more novel/left field ideas, whereas MAGIC seems a bit more strict. Perhaps that is just a perception thing though.

One is KYC'd, the other isn't. That's it.

Haveno requested some funds to be released immediately - and this request was fulfilled... They could have asked for other things to combat volatility. What they failed to mention was during the funding stage was 'In the event the USD value of Monero drops - we're downing tools'. What is further frustrating to the community is that Haveno constantly say 'we didn't need to use the CCS we could have got investors elsewhere'. So not

only did people not have to donate? now theyre downing tools?

yay!

Do we remember what happened the last time a CCS proposer had issues with volatility and downed tools? and suggested starting a new one?

No because they simply add a buffer %. Clearly recent CCS proposals do not have any of that. Brilliant!

Haveno need to take Micheal Saylors advice - re-mortgage their houses , buy a huge bag of WOWnero with it - then take out some other bank loans and self finance - list wownero on day on - dump the bags of wownero and live happily ever after

Worst thing is, you suggest them to add it, it passes from one ear to the other and drops straight into the void!

What is wownero? Sounds like a shitcoin.

Its like Monero but with solo mining and 7760 merged so the nodes are more stable , but yeah, a memecoin

Haveno is pathetic for that. I won't give them any business and will never recommend anyone to use them.

That sounds too radical! Behave yourself!

We need a Monero-centric DEX!

Shout out to Rucknium whose CCS has been delayed months (through no fault of his own) because of the hardfork delay , and now has to complete it in a bear market. And he isn't going to down-tools.

<plowsof[m]> "Haveno requested some funds to..." <- I didn't know this was specifically about haveno.... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…14511142d6ccc0d2969dbd08aca15370ed2)

Rucknium, our BCH intern!

After its been paid* for

ofrnxmr[m]: ccs.getmonero.org/what-is-ccs

For donors. Refunds are extraordinarily rare. Donate accordingly.

with my silly little WaaS ~ the USD value of the coins is shown - as soon as it touches the requested amount - the value freezes - and its up to the person to 'deal with the funds'

dukenukem: I wasn't around for that Tesla proposal , wow

plowsof[m]: We will get 3 Tesla with these funds, donate them to charity and monero will go straight to 100k in a Mars space plate!

dukenukem: I dont see anything regarding changing the contract (doing less for the initial funded request)

ofrnxmr[m]: Perhaps because that's kinda specific to the proposal, not the general rules of the system?

Yeah, im just saying I have an issue with paying for a service and then returning to find out that the service isnt going to be completed due to inflation or some shit

Evidently. Open PM with Ciccione. He is very effective getting his ideas across!

<3 ErCiccione <3.

<sgp_[m]> "I think we need to have an..." <- I also think so. But we need to have a KYC free process at the core of the community. Maybe we can try something similar to gitcoin (with less bloat) that would solve many of the issues.

MAGIC grants makes sense for students etc. But the core of the community needs to keep the anarchy and decentralization.

Participating in it needs to feel like a radical act not like a school project. I think it is of great value to have both. But the thing that is unique about monero that it still has this original radical crypto vibe. It is not this corporate bland crap we see everywhere else.

* about monero is that it

<spirobel[m]> "MAGIC grants makes sense for..." <- why students ?

<spirobel[m]> "I also think so. But we need..." <- What bloat is missing from gitcoin ?

<spirobel[m]> "Participating in it needs to..." <- It ***CAN*** feel like a radical act, but we really shouldn't ***REQUIRE*** people to make a living through very unconventional means

sgp_[m]: sounds like an argument from politician

eh, I can't force people to do one thing. All I can do is watch as CCS proposals fail to be completed or are suspended indefinitely because they're no longer attractive to work on

CCS isn't going away, I just hate to keep watching people complain about solved problems. If you donate to a CCS, you should know there's little incentive for people to keep working on the project if the price goes down, and all the work may be wasted. If you're cool with that risk, then cool

but this is a new risk that can be completely avoided through other means

sgp_[m]: That risk should be carried by the person who requested to be paid a set amount of xmr over a set period of time

Not those who paid it

sgp_[m]: There are many problems at once. The first priority is project goal and what's important for it's progress

* it's progress. Tell about little incentive to randomx developers; hahahahahahahahahaha

ofrnxmr[m]: well sure, but what about that is actionable

yay, we get to point and say "you get only X.XXX XMR for future work as previously agreed, deal with it"

but then they just walk away, and then what do you do.... ?

Its not deal with it

Its what you asked for.

If you got more than you asked for, why no complaining? It works both ways

you can't compel people to follow through and complete a task

You paid them to.

who cares if we offered a shitty offer where the milestones aren't completed, even if the proposer was the one who made the bad terms

If they dont respect xmr as a currency, thats their issue.

1 USD =/= 1 EUR

there is no stability in fiat either

sgp_[m]: any example of task that is clearly defined and important, but not completed ?

I can sit on my high horse and say people should just not care about XMR volatility because USD is also volatile, or I can live in the real world and understand that most people want lower volatility

ooo123ooo1234567: Haveno

ooo123ooo1234567: Tons! Kovri for example

hardware wallet

many, many over the years

security audit needed another top-up once

sgp_ @sgp_:matrix.optoutpod.com: you cant have double standards

Haveno cashed out early and collected more usd than they requested / expected.

Now that the price is down, its an issue

I've made my points clear in the reddit thread

Link? Not on reddit

sgp_[m]: kovri wasn't clearly defined, there was no design

anyway I made my point, people can keep using the CCS

my point isn't to prevent people from using the CCS

but I will not keep watching important projects complain about volatility when they do nothing to manage it, and then Monero suffers from stalled work

Plowsof WAAS to the rescue.....

If people dont want to use ccs or xmr, they dont have to

yeah I agree 100%, ofc

The waas has come a long way since monerujo started using it. It supports multiple currencies now

Yyou can set a dollar amount that needs to be reached and accept multiple currencies for the donation

<sgp_[m]> "but I will not keep watching..." <- any example of important projects ?

<sgp_[m]> "but I will not keep watching..." <- There are many reasons of stalled work, it isn't even the most important

sgp_[m] if the CCS requested pay in $, why weren't XMR exchanged to $ the moment CCS was filled?

exchanged to?

MajesticBank: Dollars

stable coin? bank account?

"Haveno requested some funds to be released immediately - and this request was fulfilled... They could have asked for other things to combat volatility. What they failed to mention was during the funding stage was 'In the event the USD value of Monero drops - we're downing tools'. What is further frustrating to the community is that Haveno constantly say 'we didn't need to use the CCS we could have got investors elsewhere'. So not

only did people not have to donate? now theyre downing tools?"

who wouldd keep custody of it?

same people who hold XMR?

they could hold stable coin

no one can seize XMR

MajesticBank: Yes but they wanted cash to pay devs

neither track, not even force KYC

ComplyFirst!

Again, if... (full message at libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/do…dd80a885d3cedcbba9ab429cdcbace6c814)

should have taken in consideration that price can go down during development and for this high amount

MajesticBank: They did. They took advantage of the OVERpayment without complaining

ofrnxmr[m]: I think you are misunderstanding something... Proposal was split in milestones, each to be disbursed to Ciccione for 5-6 months.

So, theoretically, the funds will remain parked until price NgU.

Since Ciccione is spineless, I assume he does not want to take the brunt of NgD.

Reading is free. Help yourself. ccs.getmonero.org/proposals/haveno-frontend.html

ofrnxmr[m]: No need to believe me, check the repo. Milestone 1 was sent to Ciccione 3 weeks ago. repo.getmonero.org/monero-project/c…9302745898066289af3bd63c29d4b6e024e

Maybe we should, instead of arguing back and forth on here, pester your majesty, lord luigi1111.

You know, the entire proposal says there's a Core team member who is part of the council and engine!!!

I believe this might speed up the haveno

and we gonna see it running with bisq frontend much sooner then with re-design

dukenukem:

Milestone 0 was paid immedietly

point prevails, attaboy.

You seem to claim the whole pie is in Ciccione's hands, that's just not the case.

<ofrnxmr[m]> "Haveno" <- There was a visual design with some workflow diagrams, it could be made more strict so that anyone can implement step-by-step like any other open source gui; But there are other questions to this project, except new gui

Use MAGIC grants next time!

MAGIC what?

151 xmr. At a price of 240$. They sold 20k worth between 228-240 and priced it around 220.

Then the price rallied to 280 and they HELD the rest of the 151. This out them in the red for milestone 0 because they held through the whole crash

MajesticBank: magic aero jets!

ofrnxmr[m]: Nobody ever downvoted or called it out on the repo while it was still to be merged!

MajesticBank: magicgrants.org/funds/monero

We definitely need a Monero-centric DEX, especially if it is lead by Ciccione!

Considering that two major donors gave most of the money for Haveno DEX

We are here debating how two people donated their money

dukenukem: is it sarcasm or not ?

For me any kind of work around monero should be supported, when you do something new you gonna hit a wall here and there

So, if I paid 500$ for xmr and donated it, and it lost value

Thats my fault?

And the whole "cash out 20k on April 15 and price it for April 8" is like lmao

Wheres the extra 10%

Fucking hell big proposals should just have a sell-off plan

monerobull[m]: Clearly they didnt

Like 10% of the xmr will be sold every day

Bull, they had 151 xmr at 25+% over value

And they held it til it was worth 40% under

Thats not my problem

They shouldn't be allowed to gamble on price, especially if the outcomes are "we either get free money or stop developing"

YOU GET IT

I very much do. Maybe we should propose it in some meeting

plowsof:

Wen meeting

You're hired as a volunteer

"Proposals asking for over 10k$ value need to adhere to a risk-averse liquidation plan" or something like this

* to a predetermined risk-averse liquidation

Plowsof said earlier that they did

* to a predetermined, risk-averse liquidation

Thats why milestone 0

But they fucked it up and didnt cash out at highs

At least they keep developing the backend

We can live with an orange bisq ui while we wait for the bearmarket to be over

But yea, there should be no backing out of contracted work..

I suggested earlier dynamic amounts for those requested in use amounts. But haveno would have messed up all the same

Been paid immedietly and not cashed out

And then once crypto gets hyped again, we get into the crypto news with "GIANT UPDATE COMING TO MONERO DEX"

If your job was to do the financing for the developers.. your job was to sell the entire 151 xmr any time the value was at or above the finances budgeted

<sgp_[m]> "hardware wallet" <- "forum.getmonero.org/9/work-in-progr…26/advancing-monero-hardware-wallet", "The project was ambitious", "Creating new hardware devices requires a different class of budget than new network or software, which is difficult to relate to for some." end-to-end very secure hardware device is a lot of work, given availability of competitors it's unclear whether it makes sense to

continue it

<MajesticBank> "For me any kind of work around..." <- certainly not any kind, without focus it would be just waste of time

not to forget locha-mesh as well, since that happened, iirc so many were all like, ccs on that was a failure and should not happen again but here we are 😹

anyways, like it been said, haveno can still be released without that fancy cute UI and imo, that should be the focus, like who even cares if the UI wont be ready for 2 more years and whatnot, as long as the platform is up and ready then that's all that matters imo

<plowsof[m]> "Its like Monero but with solo..." <- any proof that it was merged there ?

will double check for you ( selsta 7760 is merged in wownero right? )

<plowsof[m]> "Shout out to Rucknium whose..." <- ccs.getmonero.org/proposals/Ruckniu…st-Statistical-Attack.html#timeline, "... Therefore, some of the research work will occur after the hard fork.", it's more like an excuse to postpone work, rather than real reason. Any changes on monero may be researched/developed/tested before actual hardfork.

plowsof[m]: search in repo for any changes introduced by that patch, is it obvious how to do ?

ooo123ooo1234567: Again, you are not understanding the ring signature privacy model

You must match real user behavior as much as possible. Therefore, the research has to be done with mainnet transactions

ooo123ooo1234567 do you think i actually know how to use git? ^^

plowsof[m]: there is a web interface , it's user friendly

Those papers I linked before explain it. And the current decoy selection algorithm uses outdated research based on mainnet transactions.

ok ok i will try 😮‍💨

Rucknium[m]: hmm, there is a grant for artificial txs generation and analysis, which side is wrong that one or this one ?

Artificial generation of transactions is not as useful as mainnet real user transactions, but it still has some utility since there may be unknown indicators in tx generations that hint at the real spend

The statistical issues with ring signatures are multifaceted

Rucknium[m]: "is not as useful", "but still has some utility" is it ilke > 0 and < 0 or ~0 at the same time ?

mainnet txs > artificial txs > 0

For improvements to the decoy selection algorithm.

ok i cheated and selsta told me the answer :( git.wownero.com/wownero/wownero/pulls/407

it's merged to master but i didn't check if it's included in a release