The hub benefits greatly from work that other teams pay for right now.
This is the exact same thing for other teams, they greatly benefit from the work the hub devs do. As I said multiple times already, provide the hard data points with a detailled bill for the costs and the work done, otherwise we just talk in a circle.
Yeah actually thatās helpful but I hope that you do not mind if I donāt use dollar prices, I canāt get dollars from a governance proposal.
The only way I can do that is to get atoms and then dump them. Let me share a rap video with you that may help you to understand the situation better.
Okay so in my original video, which I will post next, I also discussed why DK was wrong but frankly we want alignment.
You can always replace dollars by $atom if you like to.
Yep iāll be glad to see the video.
You can Dm me here or on twitter if you like.
Hereās my original video, not the rap:
We have gone to really great lengths to make sure that we can hold the governance tokens that we earn.
I wonāt be updating the proposal until later today.
It looks like I may cut scope down to just the cosmos hub but I need to make clear that if I do that then it reduces our ability to encounter and address issues like the one faced by Quicksilver.
That issue involved multiple pieces of the cosmos stack and thatās why I scoped this the way that I did.
To everybody whoās talking dollars, please just tell me, how do I get dollars from hub governance?
Right itās impossible (without dumping on holders), the hub has atoms.
Moments after posting this proposal, a fresh Twitter account was created and they immediately contacted my family, discuss my location, and contacted members of my team, while making false claims about our engagement with stride.
Meanwhile, in a telegram group, @onivalidator who helped to fund a closed source smart contract with the same amount of money, had this to say:
But did you know that this is why @DonCryptonium made the open source funding restriction?
We saw this giant and powerful vacuum, closed source work, sucking away all of the value that open source devs put into the stack over years.
I honestly never understood why we gave so much money to Loop.
To be completely honest my interest in JUNO went dramatically down at that point.
The part about your family is really sadā¦ Iām sorry for you.
Oh well thereās a singular and solitary reason that we gave so much money to loop: @onivalidator
Loop wasnāt real honest.
I initially supported Loop too.
When I realized what they were doing, taking community money to build closed source contracts, I immediately withdrew all support.
In fact, loop is the reason for the governance proposals that say that We must fund open source only from the community pool.
So loop partially at fault for loop because I didnāt realize that they were just straight up lying about everything until they had already been fairly significantly funded.
I hope that my gentle readers will understand that a project with no purpose and no lasting value has a lot of time to prepare a governance proposal and scammy documents.
Thatās because they donāt do anything else.
Finally Iām at fault again, I taught @onivalidator how to operate a validator.
Although I highly value the work Notional is doing and think funding longer term deals with āexternalā developer teams is a good way to decentralize and improve the hub, I cannot support the size of this proposal under the current provided details.
Things i think that can be done to improve this proposal:
The above proposal is to be voted on by a large community hence why i think more information/transparancy is required.
I sincerely hope our own work as a validator and me as a person will not be dissected here in public to make a statement. Notional is the one here to show why they deserve this funding and comments by anyone in the community are welcome independent of their efforts to the hub or Cosmos at large.
Thank you for making a proposal to support the development of the hub and general Cosmos ecosystem libraries, looking forward to hear your feedback 
Just so you know, retroactive funding, I figure that only the ICF can provide it and I wanted to be clear that we would ask for it
I can remove it from the proposal but I still think weāve delivered a lot of value
Our proposal also eliminates bear market funding concerns entirely.
Thatās why we are seeking only atoms, and we will not sell them for a period of 2 years.
I think this is an important proposal for the cosmos ecosystem. Itās hard to draw a line on if this complete amount is retroactive or where it is split. Could we break the proposal into two tranches, one for retroactive and one for future development?
As someone working on the stack daily and has been for 4 years, funding open source contributions is important, if they are consistent. Notional has been contributing for a while. We should aim to find a path forward to show support.
I would even love to explore the possibility of a bounty program funded by chains and coordinated with stack engineers. Even a bounty module for the Hub and other chains that is fed from the community pool every x weeks/months.
Idk hereās some notes from a call I just had with the ICF
The issue with bounties is that they do not incentivize the kind of consistency that we provide.
I think the best move here is for ICF to become fact driven.
It isnāt a transparent organization.
It wasted the validators time with making work reports.
It is insanely difficult to work with any counterparty unable or unwilling to be consistently fact driven.
So sad Iām the only one saying this.
Then again these words are costly.
I donāt mind the intention of getting paid for work. That makes perfect sense for me.
What I wish to see here is a lot more concrete outline of what the community gets. Past work show you are capable, but in this case I would prefer something along the lines of: āNotional will dedicate X resources with Y hours for period Z to do the followingā¦ā.
I donāt think asking for money to just do whatever you want to do is fair. Most people need to be beholden to whoever they get funding from. This feels too much like a blank check (with just a few concrete items).
Notional does a lot of great work, but I donāt particularly like this way of funding things. Funding should be concrete, measurable and have a specific value for the funding party. Itās just too hard to tell if you get what you need out of it. I guess a lot of this skepticism also comes from other utterly failed funding schemes in the space. While an amazing track-record is a great start, it doesnāt cover the need for a specific budget and outcomes.
If you can clean it up to show this in a very clear way I will probably be a lot more supportive, because your teamās track record has a lot of good stuff in it 
Well just for the record hereās a little more information
Iām having a slightly hard time understanding where this request exactly comes from. I very much do believe that contributors to projects should be rewarded properly; being either communication, development or anything else. And I do believe that the Cosmos ecosystem still has to mature A LOT to get to that point.
Where I struggle however, is that you state that projects are already paying Notional as a company. In another chat you transparently state that at this stage you earn $6k a month, which for western standard is not a lot for a developer with proven track record (note: I donāt have a clue what you can get for $6k in Vietnam).
Can you elaborate a bit on how you get to the 120.000 ATOM and where it is expected to be reserved for? I mean, you state it will not be sold in the coming 2 years; which is I guess a good thing. But apparently it is not needed to have Notional as a company to stay afloat. You are even not selling commission, but keep stacking that. What I want to avoid is that we end up with entities which have too big of an influence (and I am aware that we will never ever be able to stop that completely) in the long run, which is a risk for the ecosystem as well.
Meh. Hub isnāt worth the risk to my family.
You donāt need to worry about this one anymore.
May or may not make another proposal.
Repeat request for transparency from ICF for the millionth time.
Condemn consensus rugging by AIB for the millionth time.
@LeonoorsCryptoman the atoms are for profits, our shareholders like profits. That is normal in business. Following profits is a good idea in business. But the hub causes harm and loss.
We believe in the long-term future of the hub including atom value appreciation. We are a business. We canāt bet everything on it.
Summary:
longer text
why not make a community pool-spend proposal every quarter for the next two years, at around 15,000 atom a proposal? That way the Hub community doesnāt incur opportunity cost, the community pool has time to replenish, and you can still get compensated for your work.
If the community pool is expected to grow by 4.2M ATOM over the next year, that means that notional will be allocated a bit over 1% of the quarterly replenishment rate (4,200,000 ATOM / 4 quarters = 1,050,000 ATOM per quarter) & (15,000 per month for notional / 1,050,000 ATOM = ~.015). This sets a strong precedent for a long-term outlook and sustainable contributor support. I strongly believe that some version of this is the best possible way to make your proposal. Itās slower, but it reaches the same outcomes while mitigating risks and opportunity costs.
Because when I make these spend proposals Iām threatened.
Why would I bother?
I am very sorry to hear this is occurring. There is a faction of people that act like this, but itās in no way representative of all of us, and we shouldnāt let people like this deter us from contributing because they are both a minority and an insult to the crucial role the Hub can play in the interchain. I think we can make a proposal that can pave the way for the Hub to grow the agency and sustainability of its contributor base. See above. I am happy to assist with any part of the process of making proposals repeatedly in order to reduce the governance burden of it. I believe itās worthwhile.
Iāll help you make the spend proposals. I would also like to brainstorm and find a way we can deter that kind of behavior from people in our community.
Well just so you know the hub has these problems, osmosis doesnāt have these problems.
Juno does not have these problems.
Akash does not have these problems.
Evmos does not have these problems.
Lunc does not have these problems.
the problems are compounded by the founding organizations simply not doing their job.
No one at the ICF is willing to make an official statement confirming facts.
AIB just going to rug consensus.
Yeah the Hub has a lot of problems, no doubt. Thatās why we should fix them.
The Hub is a unique gem, we canāt give up on it because it has problems.