Hey @nategosselin , @tjayrush
The data absolutely must be accurate. That’s obvious. If it can’t be made accurate for some reason, other alternatives should be sought.
Agreed. The data is inaccurate by order of magnitude as both my team and I have showcased. There is multiple bugs that cause this which we have reported. Most serious of which is the rounding up of each amount in the DB and most recently the matching amounts being calculated on difference price, than the price of the day of claiming.
The mistaken number does not “create a tax liability.”
Are you a tax advisor licensed to operate in Germany?
I have had talks with my advisors and this number create a very serious problem for us. I have already had to spend close to 1k EUR in consulting fees to discuss this and try to figure out an interim solution. They see gitcoin as the platform and if its UI says a number this is the number they will take. Sure I can start arguing and show them this thread, but then the problems have already started and my bill are ramping up. Will you or gitcoin take this bill?
I empathize with the challenges you’ve outlined, but as the discussion here shows there are still community members who find this indicator valuable — given that, we’re not comfortable removing this feature.
This is unacceptable. I am showcasing with specific bugs that your product is broken. It has a mistaken number, by orders of magnitude, that creates multiple problems. Problems with tax authorities, mistaken representation to the community that does not have the context in how long a period this funding has been earned in or what the budget that the project has for each quarter is. It’s absolutely wrong and misleading.
Another option presented here was developing a new calculation approach, but we’re faced with the challenge of prioritization — figuring out a new method is complex work and the cGrants platform is in maintenance mode while we are heads-down building Grants 2.0 to replace it. In fact, a key factor in deciding to fully replace the legacy platform with fresh Grants 2.0 code was the realization that the legacy platform couldn’t scale because of the sheer number of unsustainable experiment features like this still hanging around the codebase.
We just voted to give you guys $1,5m for 3 months. You can find some resources to fix a bug. (https://twitter.com/LefterisJP/status/1550051591801241601)
I am a developer. I find it unacceptable to have in my product something that is completely off. Either fix it, or remove it. There is no excuse to keep this.
Having said that, there might be an interim middle ground where we can just display a rounded number so it doesn’t give the illusion of accounting accuracy. I’ll look into whether we can accommodate that option ahead of GR15.
Yes there is.
If the only reason you want to keep it is what @tjayrush said above, I sympathize. Let’s then make it simple.
An alternative might be a “bar chart” or some other sort of graphical object with no numbers that indicates, “amount received” – tall bars for a lot of lifetime funding, shorter bars or not at all for a small amount of funding. The important information is relative magnitude, not exact numbers. But, please don’t remove this super-valuable clue to the a project’s “needyness.”
I completely disagree on “neediness”. There is no such thing. There is budgets per quarter. Lifetime funding, without having a budget per quarter or how many months a lifetime constitutes for is completely misleading
But we can have something that satisfies both approaches. How about this?
- You say the old system is too broken to fix
- You say you don’t have the resources to fix it
- You say an idea of how well funded (from a grants perspective) a project is, is a very useful metric and as such want to keep the number as it’s “close enough”.
So let’s do the following.
- Take the current broken lifetime amount and divide it by months the grant is active to get an average estimated funding per month.
- Calculate this value for all grants.
- Show this on the grant in a bar chart, or with tags like: “Highest percentile of avg. grant funding”, “High percentile of average grant funding” , “Medium …” etc.
Such an approach would:
- Solve all the problems I have with the current approach.
- Respect your resources. This is an assumption, but since you would not need to fix the bugs, just change the display method and average the calculation out, this should be easy to do.
- Satisfy @tjayrush’s concerns on showing which are the most well funded grants and which ones aren’t so.
Beyond that, I’d love to chat with you and the Rotki team about being an integration partner for Grants 2.0 if you’re interested. Our vision is for this funding data to live publicly and it would be great to get your team’s input on how to make that information valuable.
I don’t know what that is but feels off-topic to the thread. Happy to take it via DMs in discord, twitter or email.