-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 16
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Compensation Maintainer #86
Comments
Cycle 5 report: |
Cycle 7 report: Closed all CR except #399, which is left open for discussion. #389 was not available to vote. |
Closed all CR except rejected #446, #431 and #417, which are left open a while for discussion. |
I've updated the description of this role to include a link to the new compensation maintainer role documentation at https://bisq.wiki/Compensation#Compensation_Maintainer, which @MwithM has been putting together in bisq-network/admin#32. |
This cycle had more to do because of changes described on earlier post. I helped to write compensation wiki and it took a little effort to understand the new process, but the overall view is very positive. |
Cycle 11 reportAll compensation requests were accepted except one previously withdrawn. In general, the process has been followed without remarkable issues, from mine or contributor's end. There might be a change in the way BSQ price is calculated already in cycle 12, using volume weighted average price. Discussion is encouraged and if the change is finally made, I'll try to keep every contributor informed. Edit: I added 20USD to the price of my compensation request of 100USD because due to mempool congestion, I spent about 15USD in mining fees to send 4 DAO trading fee change parameter proposals. |
Cycle 12 reportThe 90 day USD volume weighted average have been used for compensation request USD/BSQ rate, and it will be for next cycles. At this moment, there's no proposal to use the 30 day average instead of the 90 day, and I'm not going to create it because I don't have strong arguments in favor of that change. 3 contributors did not submit their compensation request on time, they submitted it after the proposal phase expired. There was no need to update the BSQ discount. |
@MwithM, per #102 (comment), please assign all support team compensation requests to @leo816 instead of myself, effective immediately in the current cycle (Cycle 14). Thanks! |
Cycle 13 report21 compensation requests were accepted, 3 rejected and 1 was not submitted (postponed). |
@MwithM, per https://bisq.wiki/Compensation#Announce_request_submission_deadline, a message should be posted to the |
I somehow thought that the parsable compensation request template announcement would help contributors to know the deadline, but anyway the my announcement should be made earlier. I'll just keep making the announcement at the beginning of a new cycle, I didn't do it because i expected miners to advance or delay it significantly. I've been indicating the deadline to WIP requests individually, but not publishing the deadline is a mistake and I hope noone is injured by it. |
Cycle 14 report27 compensation requests were submitted. 2 of them rejected and 1 not submitted (deprecated). |
Cycle 57 report |
Cycle 58 report
|
Cycle 59 report
|
Many thanks as always for doing this work, @MwithM |
Docs: https://bisq.wiki/Compensation#Compensation_Maintainer
Team: @bisq-network/compensation-maintainers
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: