AI Assisted Minswap Catalyst Voting System - Poll

This poll concerns the use of DAO funds to pay of Elder Millenial, Mark, and Linda for technical work to implement AI and a web application for use in Catalyst voting. If it passes, 30,000 ADA will be paid to this group, and the AI tooling and web applications will be made fully open source under GNU GPLv3, ensuring that the Minswap community may use the code in perpetuity. Ownership of the code will remain with the developers since a legal DAO entity does not exist, but the GNU GPLv3 license makes it publicly available for the Minswap community to freely use.

This proposal does not fund ongoing maintenance or support of the code, merely funding the work completed on the code and open sourcing of it. Maintenance and support of the code is not included since it is unclear if future Catalyst rounds will exist, so it does not make sense for DAO funds to be spent to maintain it and it does not make sense for the developers to commit to supporting it at this time.

Link to full proposal:

Should this proposal be put forth for an on-chain vote?
  • Yes
  • No
0 voters
2 Likes

I want to express my thoughts on this proposal and provide my rationale for supporting it, while also articulating some concerns about the potential precedent it might set. To be clear, I fully support this proposal, albeit with cautious optimism. My reservations are not related to the integrity of those involved but rather the broader implications this may have for the future.

First, I would like to acknowledge the immense amount of effort required to develop, deploy, and maintain the tool in question. The process of parsing, extracting, processing, automating, fine-tuning, collecting, analyzing, representing, and reporting on data is no small feat. Each iteration has refined the model further, supported by countless hours of planning, brainstorming architectural solutions, and executing both backend and frontend development. Beyond this, the work also includes coordinating the use of the tool for multimillion-dollar voting events, addressing concerns from skeptics, and collecting and integrating feedback to enhance the model.

The scope of work spans multiple domains, including data analytics, AI modeling, programming, user interface and experience design, and thorough documentation. This does not even begin to factor in the countless hours saved by leveraging this tool during the Catalyst review process, which would have otherwise required significantly more time and resources from reviewers or the recruitment of additional personnel.

From my career as a QA automation engineer & product manager my understanding of software development lifecycles and the intricacies of model fine-tuning lead me to believe that the amount requested in this proposal is, in my view, entirely reasonable when weighed against the value provided.

It is also important to address potential misconceptions. To an outside observer, it might appear that this is simply the result of a small group working together to quickly develop a tool, utilize it sporadically, and then “extract” funds from the treasury. This could not be further from the truth. This tool has been actively used since Fund 10 without compensation and has supported voting processes in Funds 10, 11, 12, and 13, with the potential for continued use in the future. The work undertaken has been substantial and sustained.

That being said, I believe this proposal should serve as a reminder that accessing treasury funds is not an easy process. For newcomers to the DAO or those unfamiliar with its mechanisms, it is critical to understand that earning such support requires building a strong reputation, delivering a proven product or demonstrable value, and being prepared to rigorously justify and defend one’s contributions.

Regarding the future of Catalyst rounds, whether they continue or not, I believe this tooling could be adapted for broader governance applications, such as replacing the current forum-based voting system. For example, it could be utilized for informal governance steps that require validation of wallet holdings or token ownership, thereby enhancing transparency and accountability in governance processes. (If adapted to this purpose it would leave someone like myself who does not own any MIN with no say, which makes sense)

Finally, I want to express my confidence in Elder, Linda, and Mark based on their prior contributions to the protocol. Their dedication and expertise have been instrumental, and I trust they will continue to provide valuable insights to benefit the protocol moving forward.

In conclusion, I support this proposal and believe the requested funding is justified. However, I caution all members of the DAO to view this as an example of the level of work and accountability required to successfully secure treasury funding (even then with significant pushback). I hope this message provides clarity and helps build understanding of the significant contributions behind this proposal.

6 Likes

The proposal requests MIN holders to fund a tool without providing any assurance of its continued use in the future.

Despite multiple requests for clarification, the proposal appears to avoid committing to the ongoing maintenance and operation of the tool.

Additionally, there is a lack of transparency regarding code ownership, the timeline and process for open-sourcing, including a detailed breakdown of what will be open-sourced, and how community members might use the tool if the authors decide to discontinue their contributions to Minswap.

It is recommended to add further clarifications on these critical points, as they have not been adequately addressed in the current proposal and should be made clear to ensure transparency for the Minswap community.

3 Likes

Hey @PurritoGeneral

Per our private conversations, we have made multiple compromises on this and have clarified (per your request) that ongoing maintenance should be the topic of a future proposal. In your original response, you said the DAO should not commit to paying for something that is not used because there may not be future Catalyst rounds. That is a fair statement and we acknowledged that both privately and publicly. As a compromise, we took out the original statements of future work entirely to remove any uncertainty.

However, when we made this compromise you still wanted some assurances that this would be maintained in the future. Just like you wanted to protect the DAO by not funding future development that might not be used, we want to protect our time by not committing to future work that we are unsure will happen.

This seems like a very fair compromise, and I am a little confused by your statement that we have not responded to your request for clarification. It has been laid out very clearly in the proposal.

There is no lack of transparency. It was detailed in both the proposal and the poll. Code ownership remains with the developers and is open sourced under GNU GPLv3. Funds are only paid out once 3 Minswap Catalyst Committee members approve (per the proposal) so if we fail to open source it then we do not receive funds.

As for how the community might use the tools, that is up to them. We would be happy to consider proposals for additional work for new use cases and even future Catalyst rounds if they happen.

Unfortunately, at this point it isn’t possible to add further clarifications to the proposal per the rules. We made this available to you for one week prior to putting up the poll, so these details should have been worked out prior to that because modifying the proposal at this point would invalidate the current process.

Thanks for the input.

Elder Millenial

2 Likes

This should be a catalyst proposal not a Minswap Dao proposal IMHO.

Its a cool idea and I like the folks proposing it but its a no for me.

All DAO $ should be spent on driving trading volumes

1 Like

I understand where this comes from, but it ought to be a Minswap proposal for the following:

  1. F14 is uncertain, we don’t know if it will happen.
  2. This is a proposal that looks backward, regarding the work that the authors have done in order to make Minswap more succesful.
  3. The open sourcing of the tool is the result of failed negotiations between Labs and the authors. If they had been successful, the tool would remain exclusive to Minswap.
4 Likes

I have a couple of questions for the selection tool builders…

How many Catalyst Funds was this tool used on? Fund13, Fund12? Fund11?

Was there any compensation for the deployment, data analysis, etc. to use the tool for any of the Catalyst Funds it was used on?

Was there an expectation of compensation when this project was started?

Thanks,
Rich