FCS Proposal - Market Making, Development and Research

A new proposal has been posted to the Firo Crowdfunding System.

  • Title: Market Making, Development and Research
  • Author: reuben
  • Proposal type: Core
  • Link: click here

Use this topic to discuss this proposal!

1 Like

19 October 2022
@sproxet @OhGodAGirl @rehrar @rasikhmorani @Fiendish @RyanApeFiro @nrsimha

Rehrar Diego Salazar (12:12am)

It is my understanding that the CFC can make up the shortfall every month given the current price holds. It’s my opinion that keeping Firo’s basic R&D completely functional is a bigger priority than small time marketing efforts of the like. Hence, it is my opinion that the CFC should step in here and utilize the funds to cover these costs. COI note: Cypher Stack LLC, the blockchain dev and research firm of which I am CEO, receives some funds for our services. At present we handle sysadmin, some design, and one of our researchers for some hours per month. Given the COI, perhaps it is prudent that I recuse myself from this vote unless other CFC members think otherwise.

Firo Chan Reuben (12:15am)

Yeah, I think best to recuse imo

Rehrar Diego Salazar (12:15am)

As I thought. I will not vote. But I will provide numbers and express my opinion here. Given the deficit of $13,533/month, perhaps a lump sum gift to the core team of roughly $15k/month would be in order. Can be revisited every single month, so no long-term commitment from the CFC.

Nrsimha (12:53am)

What about if market making cost would be proposed to be directly under CFC? For me it doesn’t sound like something what need to be paid by dev team. My personal understanding is that dev teak funds should be used mainly for developers and critical infrastructure. Also, FCF already doing liquidity pool so it would make sense it will do Market Making from the list too, if FCF committee will agree.

Kristy-Leigh Minehan (08:55am)

I agree with this, I’d rather see it under the CFC. There are legal reasons (from a securities perspective) why that is safer. It is important to separate development (client, SDK) from the rest of the operations necessary. Additionally, I’d like to see us fund a portion of the core team cost and research cost. I don’t think admin/support/management is appropriate for the CFC to cover. Nor is hosting fees (that’s the website and AWS, right?) or sysadmin (unsure what that refers to), but yes, anything around the coin’s exchange infrastructure (market making, liquidity, legal) I’d like to see funded and, in some ways, completely handled by the CFC as an independent body, where possible.

Fiend Ish (09:08am)

I agree, I think we should take on market making costs. I also think we should cover the current development budget deficit on a monthly basis. At least until we are out of this bear market. The market in general could get much worse, so I’d prefer dev team make use of CFC resources without draining their own resources as they may need them if CFC is unable to cover shortfall if market conditions continue to deteriorate. This assumes dev is keeping some reserves in stablecoins.

Kristy-Leigh Minehan (09:23am)

Would prefer the deficit was split across research and development - optics-wise it looks a bit cleaner and feels appropriate.

Firo Chan Reuben (10:04am) (responding to ‘Kristy-Leigh Minehan – 08:55am’)

This is like GitHub, Matrix, seed nodes, electrumx servers, explorers, CI build servers, chat bridges, testnet nodes and other testing stuff. Sys admin is basically someone to look after all of these servers and keep them running, updated and patched along with troubleshooting issues. Support also covers socials and also QA and testing. Multi-purpose.

Fiend Ish (10:10am)

If we fund research and market making, we are still a little short. Perhaps add in hosting fees.

Firo Chan Reuben (10:11am)

I think is okay if it covers this already helps a lot. I can share what we are doing with the research.

Kristy-Leigh Minehan (10:28am)

Don’t touch hosting, IMO. Keep it separate from the CFC.

Rehrar Diego Salazar (10:29am)

I agree with this. Better to have the chain of command for critical infrastructure stay firmly with the core team with no wiggle room for arguments otherwise.

Firo Chan Reuben (04:33pm)

So, to summarize so far CFC is in favor of

a) covering service fees for market making USD6,333

b) covering research fees (how much?) 4-7k.

Fiend Ish (10:21pm)

  • Aye
  • Aye (7K)

Nrsimha (10:29pm)

  • Aye
  • Aye (as needed if there are funds)

Sproxet (11:07pm)

  • Aye
  • Aye

21 October 2022

Kristy-Leigh Minehan (08:18am)

a) Yes

b) 3.5k or so

I’d prefer to split 7k aggregate across ‘research’ and ‘development’.

Ryan Ape (05:40pm)

Apologize for the late response on this, I agree with the final proposal.

  • Aye
  • Aye

Rehrar Diego Salazar (11:43pm)

It would seem the ayes have it.

22 October 2022

Kristy-Leigh Minehan (01:00am)

Not quite. There is some nuance on how much is being funded for research. So, I’d make sure to specify that.

Rehrar Diego Salazar (01:00am)

What’s your suggestion? You say 3.5k to research and 3.5 to dev? I can’t vote so I’m just trying to move everything along.

Kristy-Leigh Minehan (01:09am)

Nrsimha has a vote for "as needed if there are funds”. I am in favour of splitting $x between research and development. We need to agree on what $x is. Fiend has a vote for 7k to research. And Ryan and Sproxet are in favor of a range of 4-7k research. It’s important we’re specific on what we are agreeing to and why.

Fiend Ish (02:31am)

a) Aye

b) Aye $7k maximum to be distributed to either ‘research’ or 'development’ or a mix between both. (At Reuben’s discretion)

Firo Chan Reuben (09:09am)

Thanks, I have no issue with following Kristy’s suggestion for splitting for optics.

Sproxet (11:46am) (responding to ‘Fiend Ish – 02:31am’)


26 October 2022

Nrsimha (02:44pm)


Sproxet (02:52pm)


Fiend Ish (09:31pm)


27 October 2022

Rehrar Diego Salazar (01:00am)

Reminder that I cannot vote.

Ryan Ape (12:41pm)


28 October 2022

Kristy-Leigh Minehan (09:44am)

Aye from me!

Sproxet (10:03am)


Funding target changed from ‘5800.0 FIRO’ to ‘5900.0 FIRO’

Status changed from ‘idea’ to ‘Funding Required’

Status changed from ‘Funding Required’ to ‘WIP’

Payment of 5900.0 FIRO sent

Quick update on this proposal.

The CFC members have given out their votes and this proposal has been approved. Thank you.

@nrsimha @Fiendish @RyanApeFiro @OhGodAGirl @rehrar @rasikhmorani @sproxet

Just an update:
Research mainly surrounded Spark related questions when deciding on sane limits on outputs and the effective it has on performance/wallet scanning.

Some discussions on fee models especially in light of Zcash spam attack.

Research team did skim through some privacy-enhancing smart contract architecture. No conclusions.

With the recent move of exchanges publishing proof of reserves, we briefly explored whether there would be interest in exploring a way to do proof of reserves in Spark addresses.

Market making:
FIRO/BTC: 7.2% of volume
FIRO/BUSD: 9.9% of volume
FIRO/USDT: 93.1% of volume
FIRO/USDT: 60.1% of volume

Will be making a new proposal for the month of December

Status changed from ‘WIP’ to ‘Completed’