Thats not what I meant by double spending. I understand coinfio hasn’t received funding for this work. My point is that the mandate/scope to fund this is under ICF and if this work is funded by the community pool, will be earmarked twice. Funds need to come from ICF for this work.
1 Like
The scope of work of coinfio is the cosmos ecology
Public Goods.
The ICF should be responsible for funding coinfio’s work.
Remind ICF again, ICF should be responsible for funding coinfio’s work.
In the community pool of COSMOS HUB, 90% should focus on the direct interests of ATOM itself, and 10% should focus on the indirect interests of ATOM.
For multi-chain and COSMOS ecological infrastructure construction, you should apply to ICF, Ignite, etc.
Why should the cosmos HUB fund the entire development of CosmWasm? Aren’t it many other communities that use cosmwasm and benefit most of it?
Juno, Osmosis, Stargaze, and many more have cosmwasm enabled. Imho they should carry part of the expenses for the development too. Also what is with the ICF? They should be paying such development.
Look, I’m all for funding confio to develop CosmWasm, it’s crucial for cosmos, and thus important to the HUB too. But the HUB community should only fund A PART of the cost, not all of it. It’s not fair if ATOM stakers have to pay the entire bill and all others benefit for free!
Nobody wants the Hub to fund the entire development of CosmWasm. They are actively seeking out funds from other chains as well. If that’s successful (which I believe is very likely considering how essential CosmWasm is), Confio can extend their survival time by much longer.
We have to take into account the current situation CosmWasm is facing. Development work has been entirely dropped due to lack of funds. I see this specific proposal as a stop-gap measure to make sure critical bugs continue to be squashed and essential features keep coming.
Lastly, I think this also puts CosmWasm chains using ICS, like Neutron, in a very favorable position as they will be able to have their feature requests prioritized on the roadmap, which inevitably empowers the Hub as a result.
8 Likes
Nice. Good for you, Confio!
1 Like
ICF has posted some clarity on their CW/Confio funding:
Given that ICF released a statement that they have a new contract for this work for $1.6M for the remainder of the year, will confio withdraw this proposal that currently has widespread support?
These situations are precisely why proposals that fall within the ICF scope/mandate should be swiftly rejected.
2 Likes
Sharing my personal view on the proposal in this thread, including why I think that the relation between the different funding sources of Confio and the Hub should be complementary 
1 Like
I think it would be great if Confio could provide a reply on the recent announcement from the ICF, and I have no doubt that they are already working on this. But while that is hopefully underway, my 2 cents:
I see three reasons for voting yes on prop 103:
-
Afaik, the ICF’s scope is to fund core development of the software, meaning CosmWasm, CosmJS and other related tech. What’s not in scope is things that fall under the “growth” category, such as the CosmWasm Academy, the upcoming AwesomeWasm event and any other activities that are key to developer adoption. Imo this is just as vital as the tech itself, especially considering the early stage CosmWasm is still in. If it wants to compete with Solidity & draw in more users, there’s a lot of work to be done on the educational & evangelism side of things, as well as better tooling. We need to decrease the barrier to entry of developing on Cosmos.
-
Confio needs more runway than one year. From my experience having collaborated with the ICF on several funding proposals in 2022 and speaking with some of the companies that rely on these funds, it remains incredibly difficult to establish a sustainable business if you’re dependent on a yearly (or sometimes quarterly) approval process. Regardless of the details on what happened in 2022, we need to make sure we absolutely prevent Confio from ending up in the same position it did when they announced they had to drop all work due to lack of funding. Anyone running company knows you cannot keep all your eggs in one basket. I.e. funding from multiple sources is the way to create stability in a highly volatile ecosystem.
-
Now as to the question of why the Hub should pay? I mentioned it above, and I’ll reiterate it here: CosmWasm is a critical piece of software for Consumer chains that are secured by the Hub. Contributing to its success grants the Hub economic zone a seat at the table. Input from the likes of Neutron and others will have to be taken seriously, and as Confio stated, the Hub’s needs will be prioritized on their roadmap. In the future, I’m sure we’ll see contributions come from Consumer chains, but while that’s still underway, the Hub is in a critical position to move the needle.
Prop 103 is still at 92% in favor at the time of writing, but we only have a 34% turnout. I hope we can avoid jumping to conclusions with the ICF’s recent statement and maintain a broad perspective with regards to Confio’s longevity.
3 Likes
I’m sorry. Maybe I am missing something here but this seems like a cash grab? Please educate me on how this benefits holders, investors, stakers, validators or Atom/Cosmos