6 ms·

Wish they would fund projects that already exist and that have years of unpaid effort already delivered. Instead they fund a bunch of prototypes that will prob

Wish they would fund projects that already exist and that have years of unpaid effort already delivered. Instead they fund a bunch of prototypes that will probably go nowhere.

Xylakant 5y ago
That’s the entire point of the prototype fund - there’s another technology fund that funds basic open source and infrastructure.
- ctrayx 5y ago
  The issue is not one of linguistic subtleties, but whether the government should fund boondoggles at all. While probably, at least judging by the pictures of the funded projects, engaging in age discrimination.
  - Xylakant 5y ago
    > The issue is not one of linguistic subtleties, but whether the government should fund boondoggles at all. Most early tech and prototypes are considered “boondoggles” at first. Some of them are. Some of them not. Some of them may seem so to you, but I can tell that I have used at least a handful of the projects on the list and have personally supported at least one (without knowing that they’re prototype fund funded, or maybe they were not yet, doesn’t matter). And whether the government should have a hand in funding public good software projects - who else should? > While probably, at least judging by the pictures of the funded projects, engaging in age discrimination. The age selection could also be just a natural consequence of how the fund is set up. The funding is capped at less than 50 000 EUR, which is a sum that’s less interesting to older people since they’re more likely to have something close to that in the bank. Applying isn’t free - it costs effort, so if you can fund without, it’s attractive to do so. Just alleging age discrimination without a shred of proof isn’t really reflecting good on your arguments.
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      We don't need a bunch more prototypes, but we do need to compensate some of the people who have already put in a lot of unpaid labor.
mellifluousbox 5y ago
That's factually incorrect. Mastodon was funded by Prototype Fund this year to develop new features. Mastodon was released in 2016 and has more than 26k GitHub stars, so is quite clearly way beyond being a prototype.
- riffic 5y ago
  Mastodon's an amazing project, but there are many others that exist in the space and are interoperable to some degree.
- DarylZero 5y ago
  > Mastodon was funded by Prototype Fund this year to develop new features Yeah and that's insulting. As if they had already been compensated for what features came before. Why make the funding conditional on new features? When someone has already put in so much unpaid labor. Reward the already-contributed labor!
  - Closi 5y ago
    > Reward the already-contributed labor! It’s an innovation fund, not a ‘give away free money to those who deserve it’ fund. Their aim is to be to use the funding to improve or introduce new software that contributes to the public good, so paying developers for stuff that they already developed doesn’t make direct sense considering their stated goal. The way they are allocating funding has the added benefit that they can track the impact of the fund, which will help them secure the funding for the whole fund in the long term (I.e. they can list exactly what impact they have made on projects rather than just vaguely state that they have had an impact on some projects by donating to them).
    - DarylZero 5y ago
      You're basically just telling me what they're doing, as if description were justification. > It’s an [x] fund, not a [y] fund Yes, that's exactly the problem I objected to -- not something I need to be told. > Their aim is Their aim is wrong. It would be much better to pay the back wages than pretend it's jubilee just so they can impose strings. But I guess it's hard to resist, when you have the money, to exercise the power. > they can track the impact of the fund This is the only actual point you made, and it's weak. Who cares? They can't objectively judge the social impact of the software regardless, they can only judge whether the technical goals were accomplished. Useless either way when they're choosing to fund the wrong people for the wrong reasons.
hinkley 5y ago
That may be more in the model of prizes, such as the Ansari or Ashden awards. We need more of those too.
kfichter 5y ago
The project I'm working on is doing something like this: https://medium.com/ethereum-optimism/retroactive-public-goods-funding-33c9b7d00f0c https://medium.com/ethereum-optimism/retroactive-public-good... We paid out $1m earlier this year in the first round of funding, preparing to do more rounds in the upcoming year: https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/11/16/retro1.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/11/16/retro1.html

Wish they would fund projects that already exist and that have years of unpaid effort already delivered. Instead they fund a bunch of prototypes that will probably go nowhere.

Xylakant 5y ago

That’s the entire point of the prototype fund - there’s another technology fund that funds basic open source and infrastructure.

ctrayx 5y ago
The issue is not one of linguistic subtleties, but whether the government should fund boondoggles at all. While probably, at least judging by the pictures of the funded projects, engaging in age discrimination.
- Xylakant 5y ago
  > The issue is not one of linguistic subtleties, but whether the government should fund boondoggles at all. Most early tech and prototypes are considered “boondoggles” at first. Some of them are. Some of them not. Some of them may seem so to you, but I can tell that I have used at least a handful of the projects on the list and have personally supported at least one (without knowing that they’re prototype fund funded, or maybe they were not yet, doesn’t matter). And whether the government should have a hand in funding public good software projects - who else should? > While probably, at least judging by the pictures of the funded projects, engaging in age discrimination. The age selection could also be just a natural consequence of how the fund is set up. The funding is capped at less than 50 000 EUR, which is a sum that’s less interesting to older people since they’re more likely to have something close to that in the bank. Applying isn’t free - it costs effort, so if you can fund without, it’s attractive to do so. Just alleging age discrimination without a shred of proof isn’t really reflecting good on your arguments.
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    We don't need a bunch more prototypes, but we do need to compensate some of the people who have already put in a lot of unpaid labor.

mellifluousbox 5y ago

That's factually incorrect. Mastodon was funded by Prototype Fund this year to develop new features. Mastodon was released in 2016 and has more than 26k GitHub stars, so is quite clearly way beyond being a prototype.

riffic 5y ago
Mastodon's an amazing project, but there are many others that exist in the space and are interoperable to some degree.
DarylZero 5y ago
> Mastodon was funded by Prototype Fund this year to develop new features Yeah and that's insulting. As if they had already been compensated for what features came before. Why make the funding conditional on new features? When someone has already put in so much unpaid labor. Reward the already-contributed labor!
- Closi 5y ago
  > Reward the already-contributed labor! It’s an innovation fund, not a ‘give away free money to those who deserve it’ fund. Their aim is to be to use the funding to improve or introduce new software that contributes to the public good, so paying developers for stuff that they already developed doesn’t make direct sense considering their stated goal. The way they are allocating funding has the added benefit that they can track the impact of the fund, which will help them secure the funding for the whole fund in the long term (I.e. they can list exactly what impact they have made on projects rather than just vaguely state that they have had an impact on some projects by donating to them).
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    You're basically just telling me what they're doing, as if description were justification. > It’s an [x] fund, not a [y] fund Yes, that's exactly the problem I objected to -- not something I need to be told. > Their aim is Their aim is wrong. It would be much better to pay the back wages than pretend it's jubilee just so they can impose strings. But I guess it's hard to resist, when you have the money, to exercise the power. > they can track the impact of the fund This is the only actual point you made, and it's weak. Who cares? They can't objectively judge the social impact of the software regardless, they can only judge whether the technical goals were accomplished. Useless either way when they're choosing to fund the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

hinkley 5y ago

That may be more in the model of prizes, such as the Ansari or Ashden awards. We need more of those too.

kfichter 5y ago

The project I'm working on is doing something like this: https://medium.com/ethereum-optimism/retroactive-public-goods-funding-33c9b7d00f0c https://medium.com/ethereum-optimism/retroactive-public-good... We paid out $1m earlier this year in the first round of funding, preparing to do more rounds in the upcoming year: https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/11/16/retro1.html https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/11/16/retro1.html