[bisq-network/proposals] Role owners should itemize compensation on a per-role basis in monthly compensation requests (#30)

[Harry MacFinned]

@cbeams wrote : 
> Where is the "right" number above? I don't pretend to know, and I would prefer if we don't collectively pretend to know either. ... I think it's good to have this conversation, but I'd advocate for letting things play out from here for the next few months and seeing how it goes.

I don’t pretend to know the number either.
But I think :
1/ - we should collectively try to estimate the number of safe special nodes necessary for having a safe infrastructure, 
- which in turn may, or not, lead to a better estimate of a budget to reach the objective.

I may be wrong but it seems that the number of nodes is low, the number of safe nodes is very low, the number of nodes is increasing rather slowly.
Of course we may let things play out by themselves for another new bunch of month, but the tunnel can also be digged from the other side. Ie directly increase the allocated budget (which may well be a necessary but not sufficient condition) and see what happens. If in october 2018, Bisq has 50 pricenodes because offered compensation is too high, nothing is engraved in stone, and the allocated budget may be reduced.
2/ the number should be the same for an exactly similar task. If we want to converge to automatizing compensation, this seems rather necessary.
3/ in order to estimate the number, there is not only the hard cost + soft cost. There is also the risk cost + the safety costs. At the moment the mood seems to be that everything is fine under the blue sky. This blue sky hypothesis is/was certainly a pertinent hypothesis to begin with (when Bisq is/was small), but if Bisq continues to grow, imo this hypothesis is fading, and we should adapt accordingly.


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/30#issuecomment-404397998
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20180711/5b34ffc2/attachment.html>