Compensation for Polkadot iBTC Support Initiative

$100 per hour is the salary of a top dev

A waste of money from the treasury during critical times for Interlay. I am against it.

cash flow is suffering. the question is: can we afford this type of initiative?
The need to open up Ibtc to the market is obvious.
I voted yes because we need progress and ideas.
On the other hand, the fee seems a bit excessive. I'd rather work on paying for the work done, even if it means paying more.

Fee seems a bit too steep, however i changed my vote to aye. I endorse all positive development within Interlay

1. High Risk of Uncertainty: While community support is important, the current instability and unpredictability of major players (whales) can create additional risks for the stability and success of the project.

2. Insufficient Project Maturity: iBTC as a common asset may still not be mature enough for such widespread adoption. Without thorough testing and additional security measures, we risk encountering issues that could negatively impact Interlay's reputation.

3. Lack of Transparency and Feedback: Although the referendum was professionally organized, questions may arise about the transparency of the process and whether the opinions of all stakeholders were considered. This can create tension and disagreements within the community.

4. Financial Risks: Introducing iBTC as a public good requires significant financial investments. Given the current market uncertainty, there is a risk that these investments may not pay off, leading to financial losses.

5. Unclear Economic Benefits: The economic benefit of introducing iBTC as a public good has not been clearly demonstrated. It is important to understand how this decision will benefit all stakeholders and the community as a whole.

6. Resource Diversion: Implementing this project may require significant resources that could be more effectively used for other, higher-priority and less risky projects within Interlay.

Arguments against the Interlay referendum:

1. Unjustified Compensation Precedent: Approval sets a precedent for others to demand compensation for initiatives rejected on other platforms, leading to excessive treasury spending.

2. Lack of Transparency: The proposal lacks detailed information on the efforts and outcomes, making it hard to assess the necessity of compensation.

3. Insufficient Contribution: The initiative was rejected on Polkadot, indicating its potential lack of value and quality, harming Interlay's reputation if supported.

4. Financial Instability: Payouts may weaken the project's financial stability, reducing resources for more critical initiatives.

5. Investor Risks: Unjustified expenses could lead to investor dissatisfaction, reducing trust and investment in the project.

6. Reputation Damage: Supporting a compensation referendum for a rejected proposal undermines trust in Interlay’s governance.

7. Inefficient Resource Use: The treasury should support high-potential projects, not compensations for failed proposals on other platforms.

8. Increased Internal Competition: Approval may encourage numerous small proposals competing for resources, reducing the efficiency of strategic initiatives.

These arguments help participants make a more informed decision, protecting Interlay's interests.

Спасибо господин @wdCA...jjMY "Mr RR" / mr.rr_web3.0 / @arkadihard. I know you're indirectly venting at the Interlay team and project in general because you're frustrated that your staked tokens are locked and you feel that the team has abandoned Interlay. You’re hoping that blocking community referenda or filing a lawsuit against the team will force them to return to developing Interlay.

However, I don’t think creating a hostile community environment will help. Instead let's find ways to improve and expand Interlay and to help the overall Polkadot ecosystem. We’re expanding Interlay money markets and vault collateral to expand use of Interlay’s existing products. We’re trying to decentralize by opening up collator spots and hiring another dev team to update the Interlay runtime. Those will have a larger positive impact. Even though many of your objections appear AI generated and don’t apply, I will lay out how the community decided that I should pursue the Polkadot treasury funding and be compensated for my efforts.

Rates
The Interlay team and community specifically reached out to me because they needed someone with a dev background who knew the Polkadot ecosystem and governance well. I warned it would be a dev salary based on the experience required. I have applied a $100/hr rate ever since my first Interlay referendum on 2024-03-04 which was for 13 hours. We understood that retroactive payment was better because we didn’t know how many hours these initiatives would require.

Interlay community input

Mr. RR, your focus in Interlay governance in March was adding tokens to the money market (and we added BNC and HDX)

But you never opposed any of the other proposed initiatives. Six other people voted for asking the Polkadot treasury for funds to incentivize iBTC vaults, which was the highest vote count.

Transparency
From the very beginning I warned that championing a Polkadot referendum would be a BIG effort, but it was clearly the hottest topic that everyone in the Interlay community wanted to see happen (and one of the few initiatives I could undertake without Interlay team support).

Once I had reviewed and posted the initial Polkadot discussion about treasury support, I notified the community that I had spent 15 hours so far and I received supportive emojis and youre doing a great job!.

Conclusion: The team and community requested support to drive governance initiatives, paid using Interlay treasury funds. Everyone was aware that I was charging a dev salary based on the experience required and I was very transparent both with my rate, retroactive payment, working on projects that were high priority for the community, and informing everyone up front that I thought it would require A LOT of time to push the Polkadot referendum. I accomplished all of it within only 54.5 hours spread across two months, showing that I wasn’t excessively burning hours.

Agree and appreciate the effort from spazcoin.
however, seems it is better to pay in USDT or USDC.
The INTR price is so low at this moment.

I voted yes, but I am a little doubtful that it is appropriate compensation since it was not successful.

Nothing in fact, sory!

Can no one charge less than 100 per hour? A lot of money in difficult times for the project.