It would be helpful to know who at Cosmos Labs authored this post.
For context, @Mag recommended last October that I coordinate this proposal with @RoboMcGobo who reviewed multiple iterations of the proposal.
I will make a few brief comments on the “funding history” below, but the key point is that, in the absence of support from Cosmos Labs, we do not wish to move forward with this proposal.
Hydro was designed and built as a tool to manage the community pool, which we believe should be in service of Cosmos Labs’s roadmap. To move forward, we would appreciate guidance on what Cosmos Labs would and would not support.
On the funding history:
Informal funding: I wrote the litepaper in my free time, and Jehan Tremback wrote most of the technical specifications largely in his free time as well. 1 FTE was assigned starting in August 2024, and the project was also the focus of a hackathon during the Informal retreat, with the goal of shipping an MVP by Cosmoverse. The total budget was likely in the $50K to $100K range.
Prop 955: The Hydro team received the equivalent of $975,000, including funds returned from Informal. In practice, this amounted to less, as only 70% was sold and ATOM subsequently declined in price. An additional $350,000 was allocated to other teams via grants (engineering, data indexing etc.). All of this has been documented in the quarterly progress reports posted on this forum.
AADAO funding: Is it being suggested that the Hydro team was responsible for these funds? We did not authorize any payments to third-party teams, and much of it was wasted due to AADAO mismanagement. We only supported whenever we could.
Props 955 and 991: These funds are deployed. Hydro has not spent or lost any of them, and they will be returned in full to the community pool if Hydro winds down.