Grant Proposal: Signal31

[admin]

Grant ID: 31gh8p3

Summary:

A Telegram bot (notification framework) which currently provides Curators, Indexers and others (in multiple telegram groups/channel) with (crucial) near realtime information about events happening in The Graph Mainnet (Subgraphs, Signals, Query Fees, ‘Listed’ ETH address activities, etc). Includes a few (search) commands to display subgraph/signal/listed-address information.
It could already notify about any value being changed/added in Mainnet.
Most recently, implemented screenshot functionality which allows it to show 5 timed billing charts (DappLooker) each month.
Includes channel rules and reputation system for the Telegram group ($GRT Curation Station) it was born in since the group started, 15 months ago (July 2021).

I have read and agree to the privacy policy:
true

If available, please enter a link to your project below:
Publicly, Telegram: Contact @CurationStation & Telegram: Contact @GRT_Curation

Are you applying as a team or individual?:
Individual

What type of grant are you pursuing?:
Project (one-off)

Please select the category your project best fits into:
Other

Please select who you think will benefit from your project?:
Curators, Indexers, Subgraph Developers, Other

How much funding are you looking for? (USD):
5000

Provide a breakdown of your requested funding:
The biggest part (3K) is back payment, for developing, optmizing, hosting and maintaining/upgrading it for 15 months already. Am quite sure atleast 3 months ft. on development/research alone has already been put in it.
(1K) for this Q4 2022 we are in, and (± 1K) tax.
This does not mean that every future suggestion/request will be added into it, but more requests would be considered and potentially added. There are still a few tasks open where i couldn’t motivate myself enough for yet. This grant would surely change that.
Might apply for continious grant in Januari, but for the moment it’s hard to estimate development work.

Have you applied for (or already received) funding from somewhere else?:
No

If yes, please describe where you’ve received funding from and how much you have, or will, receive:
Have not received official funding. Was involved with 2 grants (with multiple participants) before of which 1 failed and i didn’t received funds from, and the other one was not accepted, since it is too soon.
Did however received a few donations/tokens of appreciation (less then 400 USD).

What’s your vision for how your project will impact The Graph and/or web3?:
Already answered.

What can you share about any past work that is relevant to this grant?:
Already answered.

Why are you interested in contributing to The Graph and/or web3?:
For me it started with curating on subgraphs/dApp projects. With my professional background, it’s technicaly very interesting to aid ideals from Web3. Surelly hope Web3 & blockchains in general will overtrow centralisation and unequal living standards/capitalism in the world at some point.

Primary Community Poll

Do you fundamentally support this grant application, knowing that the final scope and grant amount may differ from the requested proposal?

• Yes
• No

Grant Committee Vote

Do you recommend this grant to the DAO?

• Yes
• No

[pdiomede]

Thanks so much for this grant application, and well, Signal31 is already one of the fundamental tool for Curators and not only. Being part of Curation Station, I can see how much Signal31 plays such a big informative role for indexers, subgraph developers, and of course curators.

And I understand that the effort to develop. maintain, bug fixing, and so on, has been quite intensive fork for you (3K).

About the additional 2K that you split like this:

(1K) for this Q4 2022 we are in, and (± 1K) tax.

Can you clarify better what is this for?
Thanks so much

[x0000]

Hey Paolo, for the moment i have these on my list/radar:

• Add sync status, entity count and health to new subgraph notifications (Derek).
  more context here: Telegram: Contact @CurationStation
• Investigate adding these three params to the bot (Ahmad):
  1. Expected query fees per month
  2. Expected query fees per share
  3. Expected APY - All curators (A list of each one of them)
• Github (bug?)
  On new subgraph notifications, it doesn’t always include github commits, contributors, last commit.
• Query fee notification improvement. When 2 Allocations get closed on the same subgraph deployment,
  it should just show the total QF added, not 2 lines separatelly.
• Billing notifications
• Implement Discord bot integration.
• Research Twitter integration possibilities

But am open for (some) suggestions/requests too.

Tax, well. invoice comes from a company, so national gov tax would apply (21%).

[paulieb]

Hello I am favor of a grant on this. As a curator, this tool is great and maybe underappreciated overall. It is such a useful tool and a great way to help see what subgraphs are deployed, where signal is going, updates to subgraphs and even now it looks like Dapplooker’s graphs are getting integrated. I love this tool and would feel lost as a curator without it. Please approve!

[pdiomede]

Thanks so much for such swift reply. And it looks like you have also a solid roadmap.
As @paulieb said, this is such a fundamental tool for the Curators community.
Let us know if you need to get in contact with Dapplooker’s team, but I believe you know already how to reach out to them.

[Colson]

I had not heard of this bot before. After joining the curation station telegram group, it became clear to me that this bot is very valuable for curators. I therefore support this grant proposal.

[pdiomede]

Yes, Signal31 is actually the hearth of Curation Station, invaluable tool for everybody.

[NSun]

This bot is a major tool for curators in the Curation Station chat. A lot of work has clearly gone into it already. Hope to see this get support so that future curators can also benefit from this tool and the CS chat.

[x0000]

thanks for the positive responses and votes so far guys. ofcourse various features couldn’t have been made possible without the feedback and insights of others in our curators channel; also thanks for those, you know who you are

[Mr.1776]

Hi @x0000,

First off, I’d like to say thank you for applying for a community grant and for all of your great work on the Telegram bot. I’ve seen it in action in Curation Station and can certainly attest to it’s value. That being the case, my initial vote on this application is a “no” for the following reasons (P.S. I could be wrong on both counts! Just my initial two cents):

• I feel it’s a dangerous precedent to begin awarding grants retroactively for work that has already been completed. That is nothing against the great product you’ve created. But there have been a lot of great initiatives in The Graph ecosystem prior to the AdvocatesDAO Community Grants program and if we fund one application for work prior to the program I see no reason why everyone else who provided similar value wouldn’t seek a grant as well, and that’s just not sustainable from my perspective.
• The Grant Committee has yet to award (or discussed awarding) funds to make up for taxes. Its an interesting conversation that could be had but again it would, in my opinion, set a negative precedent by having to award different amounts to folks based on the state or country they reside in. Which would cause quite a bit of a headache operationally and potentially incentivize folks to claim they live in higher tax areas than they do in order to gain additional funding. I’m certainly not saying that is happening here, only that it could create a path towards that way of thinking for future applicants.

If the application were strictly for the improvements of the bot that were described in response to the initial question by @pdiomede and the funding request was changed to request that, I would be more than happy to vote yes on this application. Otherwise, it will remain a no from me.

Thanks again for your great work and for your application @x0000.

[x0000]

Hello @Mr.1776

Thanks for you response. I understand your points and i agree i should have formulated the proposal better (but can not edit the initial post). As a builder i have been more focussed and devoted on creation solutions compared with communication aspects.

I do feel it also is a bit related with the initial multi-participant foundation grant i agreed to contribute in, was accepted, but was not fulfilled. Has a bit of a back story i am not so comfortable with in sharing publicly, and frankly is a thing of the past. Nontheless it seems i am the only one of the 4 involved who kepth contributing to The Graph anyway by providing a (continious) service and have been improving upon it (periodically), with expenses/investment.

For the tax part, this whole process is new to me and Grant Agreement, point 3.2, sort of made me more aware of it. I can send you my verifyable company details (in private) if that helps. But perhaps we can also do it without my company and lower the amount, even though at this point i am unsure what the result of that might be, if the request would be accepted.

[Mr.1776]

Thanks for the speedy reply @x0000, that is helpful background information to have.

And this whole process is pretty new to everyone here so you’re in good company! This is the place for us to flesh things out so I appreciate your ideas on the tax piece.

[ChrisEwing]

@Mr.1776 The bot in question was initially created during the advent of the Curation Station Telegram group, and there was a Foundation grant attached to that formation. Unfortunately, the other founding parties faded away without completing the grant requirements, and the funding was never disbursed. x0000 has been gracious in their response to this misfortune, but this tooling is essential to the Curator community. While I understand your point about retroactive compensation, I would present a thought question in response. Let’s pretend this bot doesn’t currently exist, and this application is requesting funding for the initial creation of such a tool. We would likely view it very favorably, because it provides significant value in an underserved yet essential segment of the community. So, if the tooling in question has intrinsic merit, the tooling is not redundant (there is no competing version), and the grant amount is equitable, then I don’t believe the existence of said tooling is of any consideration. The bot has value regardless of when it was created.
As a secondary point, I personally place a much higher value on a product that is already functioning and operational than one that is purely theoretical. Another example- Two people apply for a grant for Tool X. Person A has a functioning version of Tool X, a history of maintaining it, and a roadmap of upgrades. Person B has only the roadmap. Which grant application makes the most sense? Person A wins that contest in a landslide. So, while I am in agreement that we need to exercise caution in rewarding prior activities, I think we should assess them each individually and weigh their merits accordingly. In this case, I am in favor of this application overall.
However, I would also like to see the tax reference removed/renamed, because it does create potential issues for future applications.

[Mr.1776]

Great points @ChrisEwing!

I’m certainly less convinced of my original view now than when I iniitially posted. So I want to thank you and @x0000 for the thoughtful responses to my questions and concerns. This application has garnered a ton of great community feedback so I’m looking forward to learning and discussing more in the Committee Presentation.

Thanks again!

[pdiomede]

Thanks so much for providing further details and for your presentation yesterday.

[pdiomede]

Congratulations! The majority decision of the Grant Committee has concluded to recommend this proposal to the DAO.

In order to receive official approval from the DAO, a corresponding on-chain vote needs to be conducted on DAOHaus that will determine the DAO decision. A member of the Grant Committee will reach out to you via email with instructions on next steps in order to prepare for the on-chain funding proposal, which requires prior completion of KYC and consent to the Grant Agreement.

Thank you for all your effort to present a strong proposal aiming to grow The Graph and web3 ecosystem!

[x0000]

I hereby agree to this grant agreement of the Graph AdvocatesDAO with the GitHub commit-hash 3858eb9315ef3a0a93d0701961ffbc2a57d45205. That document forms the legal agreement of the proposed grant with the following terms:

• Scope
  • A Telegram bot (notification framework) which currently provides Curators, Indexers and others (in multiple telegram groups/channel) with (crucial) near realtime information about events happening in The Graph Mainnet (Subgraphs, Signals, Query Fees, ‘Listed’ ETH address activities, etc).
• Deliverables
  • Includes a few (search) commands to display subgraph/signal/listed-address information.
  • Add sync status, entity count and health to new subgraph notifications.
  • Investigate adding these three params to the bot:
    • Expected query fees per month
    • Expected query fees per share
    • Expected APY - All curators (A list of each one of them)
  • Query fee notification improvement. When two allocations get closed on the same subgraph deployment, should be combined.
  • Billing notifications
  • Implement Discord bot integration.
  • Research Twitter integration possibilities
• Total Grant Amount
  • USD Value: 5,000 USD
  • Token: GRT
  • Token Amount: 50,000 GRT
• Receiving ETH Address: 0xA57782b38d97cbb4527d5fE2F294B1e14C3DAE48

I understand that the agreement will only be executed upon a successful completion of a corresponding on-chain vote by the Graph AdvocatesDAO. I also understand that the grant will be disbursed on Gnosis Chain.