Namada Builder Allocations Round 1 - 2.05m NAM

[Gavin]

Edit: Proposal 14 has launched

This is a PGF (public goods funding) proposal asking voters to distribute a total of 2.05m NAM to the five (5) Namada addresses listed below, in recognition of the Namada community builders.

This proposal will be tested and reviewed after being executed on the Housefire testnet.

Specifics

Free and open-source Namada software:

• Daniel / Mandragora - 750,000 NAM - tnam1qzcgkzmddnru8w07zntd6wpywd8vptdgpu8mz44a
  • Namada indexing software, Undexer
  • Namada IBC decoding library, Fadroma

Dedicated Namada explorer services:

• ProNodes - Explorer75 - 300,000 NAM - tnam1qqd2ys42y2t5vgdtdx6epstnkykvjedxxsuc6lry
• Bitszn - Valopers - 300,000 NAM - tnam1qzt4klml5za7zn05rx569s5hfcr4nfl8zc3d4fwu
• Daniel / Mandragora - Shielded Live - 250,000 NAM - tnam1qzcgkzmddnru8w07zntd6wpywd8vptdgpu8mz44a
• Coverlet Namada Explorer Beta - 250,000 NAM - tnam1qqsrhr894nnupdyu2fqrg290pyxd50pq5vrj8xtf
• Sproutstake Namada Explorer - 200,000 NAM - tnam1qrfyg27adsuege6ef94rek5d6cvjcs2afyw9nrhq

These tnam addresses have been lifted from user profiles, Discord and/or this forum. If you use their services / software, you can tip them anytime! @shurinov @alx @Daniel @Leon @Oneplus, please let us know if your address needs updating.

Criteria

If software is useful and being used by our community, open sourcing it under an unrestrictive licence is kind of a big deal. It’s essentially giving the Namada community your work. I posted a bit about that here in [Discussion] PGF priorities for software in Namada.

Table stakes

Namada’s explorer services are not (yet) open source, so accuracy and reliability should be table stakes for consideration. The Namada community is totally dependent upon service providers to run the service and and to fix the issues, especially accuracy issues that may misinform Namada users and other stakeholders.

There should also be a standard for what the service provides. It can be tempting to re-use a project across many Cosmos projects, for example, which can be fine if it’s adding new value. Since Namada has a unique code-base, it can be hard to re-use code for querying and transacting, but we anticipate that a service worth recognizing will offer more advanced functionality than the very basics of network exploring, or the very basics of Namada transactions, especially if it’s a service offering beyond Namada. As our ecosystem matures, this standard should also mature.

For example, a niche service that provides shielded pool metrics and statistics is noteworthy if launched and running now, because this information is otherwise not easily accessible in a palatable way. Now imagine if these metrics were already fully integrated into the explorer services three months ago–launching such an app in this more mature ecosystem would not be adding new value.

Differentiators

Other key considerations we made for this proposal involved

• impact
  • how useful has this service / software been to those who use and/or contribute to Namada? how useful is it likely to be going forward?
• advanced features
  • is there something niche that’s particularly useful? ie. solves a specific problem
  • is the entire set of features particularly useful? ie. a “one-stop shop” for a particular kind of activity
• timing & activity
  • how early and long-running is this service / software?
  • is functionality improving? do improvements reflect the needs of users and/or contributors or other stakeholders?

Context

Three weeks ago we called for what are essentially the first set of Namada Builder nominations:

Nominations call for Namada apps, tools, and services

It’s been a long haul–MUCH longer than anyone could have imagined Despite the ups and downs the delays the challenges, there are so many amazing folks that have continued to double down their bet on our community and ecosystem–especially those who have been continuing to build important stuff. There have been some key contributions that we (Luminara ) think really stand out as being impactful within N…

At this early stage of Namada, builders have primarily advanced Namada explorer code and services, critical to the Namada experience and ever-more important as we advance through Phases 4 and 5.

These builders have dedicated their valuable attention and efforts to Namada, most of which did so before Namada was widely known, and are the earliest builders in our ecosystem.

A bet on Namada’s future

Early stage builders in Namada have made risky bets, especially given the uncertainties around when Namada would launch. I remember saying I couldn’t be part of our family vacation a few months before June 2023 because “Namada mainnet may be launching”

Retroactive public goods funding is not just recognition–it’s also a signal:

1. we’re betting on a shared future with these builders
2. there’s an opportunity for newcomers to attain a meaningful Namada position

It could be that some of Namada’s most important contributors haven’t even joined yet.

Namada PGF is a unique opportunity to drive Namada ownership toward active contributors, which benefits everyone invested in Namada’s success. Let’s get these folks some more Namada ownership and keep the PGF culture rolling.

We’re keeping an eye out for up-and-coming builders!

[preto]

I support this. (extra characters for character tax)

[cryptosj]

fully support it , all of them deserve it , especially @Daniel

[zenodeapp]

Bosses ! Got my support!

[CosmicValidator]

@Gavin

Three weeks ago we called for what are essentially the first set of Namada Builder nominations:

Congrats to the builders receiving funding in this proposal, and hopefully other builders are recognized also soon, for example the only builders working on a custom Namada UI with advanced MASP functionality, and since the mainnet launch in December 2024 providing users all the phase 1 and 2 functionalities

[Gavin]

keep going! looking forward to https://namada.omniflix.co adding value to the Namada ecosystem

[ChainflowPOS]

We support this proposal.

[ke1pie]

Totally support this proposal!

[citizenweb3]

Fully in favor, the guys deserve it!

[Daniel]

@Gavin

I’d like to emphasize one point. The Shielded Live explorer was the only explorer that was functional after the SE, for several months until the mainnet launch (1st one having key features such as data decoding of most of transactions types at such an early stages); and after the launch.

Regarding the current state of the explorer, which has had some abrupt interruptions for about 3 or 4 weeks, I’d like to report that this is primarily due to an internal migration from the old Undexer v4 features to the new Undexer v5 features; the improvement of the infrastructure on which the explorer is hosted to ensure its long-term stability and availability; and the enhancement of some of its features. So, it will take short time to be full available again.

That being said, I believe the specific explorers allocations need to reflect the full retroactivity of Shielded Live, and not just the retroactivity period since the mainnet launch.

[Gavin]

Hi @Daniel

Shielded Live has a history of being a very useful service, with advanced features at an early stage. However, there’s also a history of Shielded Live misreporting data, which can confuse Namada users and other stakeholders who count on this service.

I mentioned this once in December. On March 4 I asked if you could signal the state of Shielded Live’s service to users, since the service had been misreporting for a few weeks. It’s Mar 28 and there’s still nothing to indicate that to the user.

Accuracy and reliability should be table stakes for a service to be noteworthy, and Shielded Live has not demonstrated either for a concerning amount of time, without informing users.

The amount that we are requesting for voters is focused on retroactive recognition of the Shielded Live service primarily during the period prior to mainnet launch.

[Daniel]

Hi @Gavin (wanted to put all-in-one to avoid flooding as well as prioritize assertive and non combative arguments - I really want to apologize for that, my honest desire is to keep the harmony with you and other core contributors).

There has been only 3-4 weeks interruption, and misreporting data has happened on all the explorers above at some point, so, with all my due respect, trying to criminalize or utilizing this argument to somehow undervalue Shielded Live explorer isn’t good.

I basically have had to gave a hand to resume operations in mid of a recovery process, because the working hours were being excedeed. You told me about informing users about explorer being stopped or having misresporting data, but this hasn’t happened either with the other explorers above when it happened to them - so, please, don’t criminalize it with such an argument.

@Gavin

The amount that we are requesting for voters is focused on retroactive recognition of the Shielded Live service primarily during the period prior to mainnet launch.

The amount still doesn’t reflect the full retroactivity, which has been many many months ago before mainnet launch.

The explorers` allocations need to reflect the full retroactivity, and in its current state, the numbers don’t reflect this, it’s the truth. I’m just being realistic, telling the truth - I’m trying to be in a happy mood during my recovery process, but when things aren’t alligned with the truth, I’m sorry, but I will be here to state clearly things.

That Shielded Live has been the only explorer operational during the post-SE ending until mainnet launch period (being also the 1st one in the post-SE on having transaction data decoding features), and then on mainnet launch as well.

Criminalizing this kind of contribution for a 3-4 weeks interruption, when you know what happened to me and about my personal situation, isn’t good and really hurts me, even more when, despite of all, I gave a hand to get things rolling again - not informing about misresporting data has also happened with at some point to the other explorers due to the constant work progress and new features addition, I think that’s reasonable, isn’t it?

By the way, the “Beta” tag is also used for a reason, despite not specifying that concretely, okay. But, you are now suddenly trying to criminalize and undervalue Shielded Live because of not putting such a disclaimer others haven’t put either. Does it sound fair to you, Gavin?

@Gavin

I mentioned this once in December. On March 4 I asked if you could signal the state of Shielded Live’s service to users, since the service had been misreporting for a few weeks. It’s Mar 28 and there’s still nothing to indicate that to the user.

Reindexing of the explorer started on March 7, that’s why the disclaimer hadn’t been displayed at that point, because I thought it would end up fine. I told you this in DM on March 7 too. Reindexing suddenly stopped a week ago due to internal migrations from Undexer v4 to v5 functionalities, among other things I already stated above.

This has been publicly stated in Discord recently also, along with the other things.

Disclaimer has now been added on top of Shielded Live, along with a pulsing dot. Orange when reindexing/catching-up and green when its all up-to the highest block.

[CosmicValidator]

@Gavin

there’s also a history of Shielded Live misreporting data, which can confuse Namada users and other stakeholders who count on this service.

With respect Gavin, maybe others should also take some responsibility for this. Shielded Live was the first and only explorer for Namada, I remember for months after the SE, Shielded Live was the only explorer available. Moreover, most current Namada explorers wouldn’t even exist if not for other tools that Daniel brought like Undexer, Fadroma, etc. Overlooking the significance of all this, how critical all this infra is, and not funding any of this until so many months after mainnet seems like a mistake from those responsible of funding. Donations and all the other ideas is great sure, but we shouldn’t start building the roof I think without properly building and supporting the walls

[tonymarma]

Sorry, I thought I would avoid discussing this matter. I agree with the proposal, also agree that Daniel has contributed more than anyone here. But I don’t agree with this PGF proposal launching right now. I feel like we are rushing to do PGF fundings, which is resulting confusions and arguments. I suggest to wait some few months more and onboard more builders and contributors.

[tonymarma]

Maybe further discussion might change things

[Gavin]

It’s very difficult to recommend or promote a chronically unreliable explorer service.

There has been only 3-4 weeks interruption, and misreporting data has happened on all the explorers above at some point, so, with all my due respect, trying to criminalize or utilizing this argument to somehow undervalue Shielded Live explorer isn’t good.

At least 7 weeks of misreporting. More than three weeks ago I drew your attention to the fact that Shielded Live had been misreporting for weeks (at least four weeks, iirc). Which is fine if there’s some sort of accountability to those using the service, so personally I’m glad that you now have a disclaimer.

@Daniel I think Shielded Live may still be misreporting governance tallies

I think maybe the same issue that I reported in December.

[Gavin]

Perhaps auditing explorer accuracy could be a project for someone

Further to misreporting challenges, @Oneplus raised this kind of issue as well. See the Anoma Foundation’s address metrics:

1. https://shielded.live/address/tnam1q8nm4ar7aua8035du0m8x6amfe4407uzvqtfs6lm
   

   

2. https://namada.valopers.com/account/tnam1q8nm4ar7aua8035du0m8x6amfe4407uzvqtfs6lm
   

   

3. https://explorer75.org/namada/accounts/tnam1q8nm4ar7aua8035du0m8x6amfe4407uzvqtfs6lm
   

   

4. https://namada.coverlet.io/address/tnam1q8nm4ar7aua8035du0m8x6amfe4407uzvqtfs6lm
   

   

5. https://namada-explorer.sproutstake.space/main/accounts/tnam1q8nm4ar7aua8035du0m8x6amfe4407uzvqtfs6lm
   

   

CLI output:
Unbonded delegations from tnam1q8nm4ar7aua8035du0m8x6amfe4407uzvqtfs6lm:

Withdrawable from epoch 129 (active from 73): Δ 1014080.000000 (slashed 0.000000)

Unbonded total: 1014080.000000

Withdrawable total: 1014080.000000

All bonds total active: 48985894.000000

All bonds total: 48985894.000000

All bonds total slashed: 0.000000

All unbonds total active: 1014080.000000

All unbonds total: 1014080.000000

All unbonds total withdrawable: 1014080.000000

All unbonds total slashed: 0.000000

[Daniel]

@Gavin

I think maybe the same issue that I reported in December.

You didn’t track the report you have made. The issue you are mentioning was resolved three days after your report, as you can see below.

@Gavin

It’s very difficult to recommend or promote a chronically unreliable explorer service.

Shielded Live has been the only reliable explorer service working since post-SE until mainnet launch with very little periods of interruption, because being navigating across multiple upgrades and protocol code changes, improving and maintaining it on the fly on each of them (both Undexer and Shielded Live at the same time).

We are talking about retroactivity at the end, not about an assumption one makes today due to a a tracking report one makes today too, which it’s indeed wrong, as you have seen and I proved to you above.

The only period in which Shielded Live wasn’t working properly was post hard-fork on mainnet. It was working fine since the mainnet launch without interruption. We troubleshooted it accordingly and started the reindexing on March 7 - it’s in your DMs, as you can see above.

@Gavin

At least 7 weeks of misreporting. More than three weeks ago I drew your attention to the fact that Shielded Live had been misreporting for weeks (at least four weeks, iirc). Which is fine if there’s some sort of accountability to those using the service, so personally I’m glad that you now have a disclaimer.

@Daniel I think Shielded Live may still be misreporting governance tallies

The issue you are referring to is recent and has to do with issues that appeared after the hard-fork upgrade, which we troubleshooted accordingly and when we started the reindexing, as you can see above and told you in DMs. So, no, it’s not the same issue you reported back in December, because, as you can see, the proposals results before the on-chain proposal related to the hard-fork are accurate → Shielded Live

In the image above you can see that resolving governance misreportings since proposal ID 3 is within our priorities after being fully reindexed again. Below (quoted from my first message in this topic above) you can see explained in detail the main reasons behind the misreports appeared during that period.

@Daniel

Regarding the current state of the explorer, which has had some abrupt interruptions for about 3 or 4 weeks, I’d like to report that this is primarily due to an internal migration from the old Undexer v4 features to the new Undexer v5 features; the improvement of the infrastructure on which the explorer is hosted to ensure its long-term stability and availability; and the enhancement of some of its features. So, it will take short time to be full available again.

[Gavin]

Request: Audit our five Namada explorers

Want to help Namada? Help out by auditing our five explorers! Explorer services need to be reliably accurate because Namada users and other stakeholders rely on this kind of service as a source of truth, sometimes for decision-making. We need to know if our explorer services are accurately reporting correct information about Namada so we can advise users, advise explorer creators/operators, and advise those engaging in Namada PGF. Opportunity Luminara is seeking a person or peopl…

[preto]

I said I support this proposal above, and I still do. However I want to note in respect to some of the comments made (hector, daniel), that I consider the total allocation Daniel/Mandragora is receiving to be generous, and I am ok with this. I also consider the allocation the other explorers are receving to be good, and I am also okay with this. The allocation Mandragora is proposed reflects the totality of the contribution imo, which is a significant contribution, and thus proposed at 1M nam total. This is a lot of nam. Again I support this proposal, but I am not sure why we keep discussing relatively generous numbers here. Just my two cents.