Beneficiary Address: 5CyarovBr8e3uAauvGH7MhmT8wQPZ5W3eCEwM1fHoHf9LapE
Milestone funding size: 5000 USD worth of INTR (reference only)
Amount to make up for exchange rate difference: 75466 $INTR ( <--- this is what we are asking for)
Caron and Matías are trying to recover the difference between the grant amount and the value of the INTR that was eventually paid out.
We are providing as evidence the median price of INTR in the relevant weeks as follows:
We politely request support by the Interlay community.
Is it possible to freeze the service and then restart it again after the project has grown in size?
I consider the cost of 5,000USD to be quite high for the current project size.
I will change my vote depending on your response.
I am sorry for your time, but thank you in advance for your patience.
perhaps there is a misunderstanding here. The work was completed and the team signed it off, there was a vote about it already and both milestones were paid. However, the INTR paid out was not worth as much anymore when the referendum paid out.
I agree it's fair to question value for money, but in this case the referendum is only about making us whole for the INTR depreciation. Were this vote not to go through, people in a similar situation may be more hesitant to provide services or agree to be paid in INTR.
Thank you wdBy...aFCn for revoting in favor. That also gives me a new test case for the analysis software :)
I would hope that people take the time and explain their vote.
Caron and I did quite a bit of work, and it's a bit demotivating to see the nay votes piling up without a justification. The use of the word "community" seems a bit misplaced, because in a community you communicate...
Indeed the only person providing details was voting under false pretenses, and they reversed their vote later. Why did the others vote NAY? One party even went to great lengths to vote using 3 wallets (at least timestamps suggest this)
I'm sorry I'm not sure I quite get it
Initial RFP says Milestone 1: (3000 USD worth of INTR), Milestone 2: (2000 USD worth of INTR)
I see from the two milestone payments that this has been achieved by doing an average the last 7 days the day of submission of the proposal for the milestone, which to me seems like a fair approach.
You are saying that you have been underpaid because you are looking at the average price the day of execution which in this case decreased between the two dates.
Did I understand correctly?
To me, considering using the last 7 days average the date of submission is the best approach possible (as we cannot obviously anticipate the price of the days of execution), it has to be the one that is done.
What I would suggest is that for any future RFP that is clearly stated so that the people taking on the job know it.
Here I am a bit embarrassed as I understand your request but:
Happy to receive your feedback
Sometimes the innocent pay, unfairly.
But on the other hand, the sector is full of malicious agents.