#18: Audit reimbursement and remuneration Q2

Proposal
#1

This proposal concerns fufilling the second quarter of my remuneration as specified in proposal #15. It’s been approximately 3 months since the first proposal for my remuneration passed, below is highlights of the responsibilities I have undertaken since that time.

The following data outlines the monthly moving average for USD/TORN to price the remuneration:

DAYS DATE USD PRICE MOV AVG
1 2023/03/15 7.092976705 7.093
2 2023/03/16 6.907996963 7.000
3 2023/03/17 6.913927553 6.972
4 2023/03/18 8.010115187 7.231
5 2023/03/19 7.930991892 7.371
6 2023/03/20 8.059512002 7.486
7 2023/03/21 7.344529808 7.466
8 2023/03/22 7.41511327 7.459
9 2023/03/23 7.081080577 7.417
10 2023/03/24 7.26292586 7.402
11 2023/03/25 6.952187647 7.361
12 2023/03/26 6.835059923 7.317
13 2023/03/27 6.89619145 7.285
14 2023/03/28 6.534179492 7.231
15 2023/03/29 6.7238558 7.197
16 2023/03/30 6.90754219 7.179
17 2023/03/31 6.761774373 7.155
18 2023/04/01 6.818439444 7.136
19 2023/04/02 7.121460056 7.135
20 2023/04/03 6.972737876 7.127
21 2023/04/04 6.77379195 7.110
22 2023/04/05 6.918734222 7.102
23 2023/04/06 6.976055677 7.096
24 2023/04/07 7.461627432 7.111
25 2023/04/08 7.189031257 7.114
26 2023/04/09 8.598586113 7.172
27 2023/04/10 7.801984049 7.195
28 2023/04/11 8.04716679 7.225
29 2023/04/12 7.761503432 7.244
30 2023/04/13 7.705081243 7.259
31 2023/04/14 9.202084348 7.322
32 2023/04/15 9.14056765 7.379

Along with creating a Sablier stream for the next 91 days of my contribution, I am seeking subidiary reimbursement for the audit payment I fulfilled, which was priced at $15,000. This is priced at the at the 7 day moving average from today, which is equal to $8.322.

To summarise, all remuneration parameters:

Base salary: $240,000
Payment per quarter: $60,000
USD/TORN monthly moving average: $7.379
Q2 renumeration: 8131 TORN

Audit payment: $15,000
USD/TORN 7 day moving average: $8.322
Audit reminbursement: 1802 TORN

1 Like
#2

Maintainence of the Classic relayer software to address potential contigencies of preimaged docker images and streamline multiple network deployments

This is not entirely true. Software for relayers from the official repository does not work for any sidechain due to version conflict.

Also, tornado cash user “baralginus” from telegram chat told me to post here his opinion:

I suggest waiting for the court hearing in the case of Alexei, which will take place on the 21st, and only then start poropsal of remuneration for Gozzy. If Alexei returns to development, it makes no sense to allocate such a significant amount ($60,000) to community developer

Full conclusion about it all:

  1. Maintance of classic-ui - 8 commits, 3 of which are rpc updates, another one is from proposal related to relayers proposed by another person, two are fixes for two to four lines of code each, and two commits for the implementation of proposeByDelegate. In total, this is a hundred lines of code, simple, not very specific, if paid to a third-party qualified developer, it would cost less than $ 1000, and anyone can update RPC - even me.
    We can also add to this the support of sites and payment for hosting - anyone can do it too.
  2. Maintainence of the CLI tool with more user-friendly features - several commits in the last quarter. In general simple code to improve the UX - parseNote command, 10 lines of code, a couple for the deposit confirmation prompt, one function from web3.utils related to gas and so on. Any part of this will be written by a junior JS developer with a salary of $ 500 per month, once opening the documentation.
  3. Maintainence of the Classic relayer software to address potential contigencies of preimaged docker images and streamline multiple network deployments - already mentioned. Nothing works, redid twice, still doesn’t work for sidechains. As a result, I launched the relayer myself, configuring everything with my own hands and collecting the modified code. Gozzy’s contribution is negative, $0.
  4. Updated protocol documentation, including the introduction of an opsec guide all deployed to IPFS - great, good job, no complaints. I don’t know how much to estimate, but really not much.
  5. Aligned contributors on and implemented two of the completed bounty submissions - by the way, I want to remind you that all the documentation for the software for relayers, thanks to which I managed to remake and launch at least something myself, was written by another community contributor, not Gozzy.
  6. Authoring of a non-technical tutorial for usage of the CLI tool is a good job, but it’s a couple of hours of time. Even I can do it, I also advised nvm-windows, it costs a penny.
  7. Daily moderation of discourse even in the hightened periods of spam - there is no moderation. A couple of people were blocked for no reason, the chat was simply closed, Gozzy stated in obscene terms that he was not paid for moderating the chat and he did not have time to work on it.
  8. Maintainence of community infrastructure - I don’t know what is hidden under this phrase. Maybe support for hosting community sites and Github - then okay
  9. Finalized and presented quantitative finance simulations for risk assessment of the previously planned treasury diversification strategy - OK, no questions asked, good job.

Now, solely on the facts: all the work done and indicated in the proposal is described and analyzed. WHAT SPECIFIC part of it is worth at least 1/10 of $60,000? Gozzy, an explanation is required.

#4

(We’ve wanted to reply to the above post, then deleted because we noticed we didn’t actually hit the reply button, and then realized that it does not accept similar reply bodies)

Reply to Above

We will cover version conflicts below, but first of all we do not agree with baralginus that bargaining and betting on the outcome of Pertsev’s court trial is in any way shape or form an intelligent decision! If we are going to discuss the remuneration amount, then this must be based on the current balance of the Governance contract in relation to the services offered, meaning a runway. Full stop.

Furthermore, our projection is, maybe not of the poster we are replying to, but our, that, if Pertsev is not only allowed to walk away without some type of sentence, but also contribute to Tornado Cash related software again (allowed to contribute as in, host infrastructure himself and such, by law enforcement), it is almost without question that this will constitute a malicious attack on the protocol, malicious in the sense of of the careful attempt of the deanonymization of users, contributors and subversion of community infrastructure, because of being influenced by organizations which are exactly interested in doing this.

Furthermore, let us imagine a scenario in which we consider the formerly mentioned and in which the current contributor denies the remuneration amount and does not host further infrastructure, would the poster then trust the infrastructure which Pertsev and (possibly) the former contributors would host? We know that we definitely wouldn’t.

Remember that currently, we are using the infrastructure which the contributor claims to be hosting (well, we can be sure that Pertsev is not hosting it from the Netherlands).

In relations to the mentioned issues on version conflicts, we have seen the contributor actively monitor the Matrix chatroom (we cannot speak for Telegram) and work on the relayer code, so if there are issues, we believe that they are being resolved, but furthermore it should be considered that the contributor himself is trying to address issues which are protocol critical in parallel, which range beyond the relayer code.

Statement

Currently, flooring the Governance TORN balance gives 23.750 million $ in token value. This constitutes if divided by one such yearly salary almost 99 years of uptime of the current infrastructure. Considering this mathematically, we are definitely ready to accept this trade considering that the only reason the current infrastructure has been functional is because of mentioned contributor.

1 Like
#5

About baralginus: I also don’t fully agree with him and his position. I just share his opinion, because he does not speak English and asked me to share it on the forum.

General questions about the proposal have been edited into my first post so more people can see it.

#6

First of all, Alex is not the only tornado team. There are also poma, roman, etc. After the sanction, they have not continued to maintain tornado. For example, the tornado website cannot be accessed after the sanctions, and most rpcs restrict tornado.
At this sensitive moment, Gozzy stood up and continued to maintain tornado, and did a good job. Gozzy deserved the reward, and the proposal vote was passed.
so i disagree with you.

2 Likes
#7

this argument would be stronger if there were multiple people competing for the “job”
gozzy is the primary person working on tornado
just being available to answer questions and fix minor bugs is worth the retainer fee

also i dont know what alexey has to do with this
the original grant has been cancelled as the previous devs are no longer contributing
if alexey wants to start contributing again they can apply for a grant like everyone else
we could even choose to cancel gozzys money stream in favor of alexey if we wanted

#8

Proposal now live and deployed at:

#9

Alex is freed under an Ankle monitor and not allowed to touch Tornado Cash again currently.