Assuming V2.0 comes relatively soon, and assuming that there’s a strong commitment to retaining some method for end users to ascertain at least a relative amount of lifetime earnings, I suppose not wasting time fixing it is reasonable.
One comment on monthly average vs. overall. That hides useful information. Two projects, both with 1,000 monthly average, but one with one month’s worth of lifetime earnings and another with 1,000,000 lifetime earnings are two completely different things.
In version 2.0, since we’re going to this problem, perhaps both metrics can be retained.
I appreciate all the feedback everyone. We’re going to implement the solution I outlined above, and will keep this thread for reference when we begin working on this design space in Grants 2.0.
Thanks for your follow-up here, Nate! I’m glad we can address the most pressing concerns around tax liability with minimal effort and context switching.
I just wanted to echo what Nate’s stated about our focus on Grants 2.0 and keeping the 1.0 platform in maintenance mode. We’re making great progress on 2.0 and the more laser focus we can keep, the sooner we can move the entire program off of the 1.0 platform - every bit matters.
Since I spoke with Kevin Olsen a bit in private about this he asked me to clarify something that he at least did not understand from my posts above and he thought would make my argument stronger.
I believe I made it clear but perhaps that is not the case.
I agree with all of you that you should focus on grants 2.0 and only do maintenance stuff on cgrants.
But the current page of cgrants is the SOURCE of our problems and in our opinion should be fixed as part of maintaining cgrants. I mentioned that a number without any context does damage here: [Proposal] Remove Lifetime funding received from gitcoin grant page - #16 by lefterisjp. I explained that you need the project’s budget, the amount of months this funding is for etc. But I did not mention how this has damaged projects as I did not want to name specific cases. Kevin said it’s okay and helps illustrate the problem so I will. Rotki and other grants (like otterscan from wmitsuda) got removed from the ENS ecosystem round exactly due to the funding amount being higher than a specific amount.
One comment on monthly average vs. overall. That hides useful information. Two projects, both with 1,000 monthly average, but one with one month’s worth of lifetime earnings and another with 1,000,000 lifetime earnings are two completely different things.
Absolutely.
But guys in general I feel like I am trying to get my point across over long forum posts and I see the members of the gitcoin team largely ignore what I am saying and saying you won’t fix it and then nodding to each other for a job well done.
if it is an accuracy issue, rounding to 3 categories - large, medium, small seems fine.
Shouldn’t the tax authority use the actual wallet address? rather than a website number?
"Problems with tax authorities, mistaken representation to the community that?
