• mcmmike : Before we start I would like to thank @ defistaker i & jankie1800 for the constant and ongoing support taking care of meeting notes and pull requests on the agenda repository.

• anynomous : For those who want to review today's agenda, here is the link: https://github.com/grincc/agenda/issues/9

• mcmmike : Before we start, Mac asked to me to vote for him as well, we agreed on the topics of today and I am casting his vote. I will explicitly say which vote is from who (me or Mac)

Let everyone read the agenda and in a few min we start

• anynomous : The way I was thinking we can structure this, is by simply voting/thumb's up for 5 different options, to get an idea of what the community wants. We can then discuss our motivations, and continue the discussion later on the forum.

  What do you think, would that work?

• mcmmike : that would work

• anynomous :

    a) Not needed, paying 100% in Bitcoin is fine, who needs to use his own coin (vegycsol 1/2) total 0.5
  
    b) At least 5% (joltz (1/2)) total : 0.5
  
    c) At least 10% (joltz 1/2, dtavarez 1/2) total : 1
  
    d) At least 25% (mcmmike, anynomous, hendi, vegycslol 1/2, dtavarez 1/2) total 4 
  
    e) More, please specify in discussion (cekickafa 50%, mo5itoo 50%, defistaker 50%) total 3
  

• mcmmike : I would like to add my thoughts on this as I fully agree to pay in GRIN. But we also need to figure out the logistics on where we exchange BTC for GRIN and how do we make the process transparent

• anynomous : Very, true, there are many logistics points here that come to mind, not only for the council that pays in Grin, but also for those who receive funding. Yes I can

• anynomous : For me 20% also works

• cekickafa : 50% minimum

• defistaker : 50%

• mo5itoo : as we will be mining using asic machine, we need to use these coins more often. 50% min imho

• vegycslol : I would let the one who is getting paid pick what he wants to get. If he wants btc then i see no reason not to pay 100% in btc

• anynomous : I think 50% would create to much hassle for those who receive it, let me explain.

  I think in general, it is a safe assumption that people can save 10-20% of whatever they get paid. For most people that works, however, if you would pay 50% in Grin, and someone would need live from that (the other 80%), he would need to exchange, in which case a lot might be lost due to exchange rates and the small pool of Grin being exchange. Yes this is chicken and egg problem, but it is real.

• hendi : I think 20% is perfect

• mcmmike : I would make it mandatory to receive X% in GRIN which we agree on

• hendi : Once grin is more established/less volatile we can increase it

• mcmmike : 25% would be perfect 3/4 in BTC and 1/4 in GRIN

• dtavarez : Between 10-20% works for me

• joltz : My 2 grin: 5-10% would be a reasonable "equity" to paid contributors. More than that I think they will instantly sell to get more liquid assets. That may be the sweet spot to let them work, earn the liquid money they need, then be incentivized to help increase adoption to increase value of their 5-10%. This way, they don't have to stress too much about the value but there is still incentive for them to want it to increase.

• cekickafa : if we dont trust our own currency, nobody will. And you still hesitate even %20?

• anynomous : I agree with @joltz on this, although I would like to see this number go up to 20% if it works well.

• vegycslol : I would probably give 2 options:

  • full btc
  • 20% grin, 80% btc

  Then over time i would increase grin % from the second option or add another 100% grin when we have enough. I don't see a reason to force people working for us to have to deal with dumping big amounts of grin when we have very low liquidity

• anynomous : @cekickafa I do believe in it, but I do not believe we can build rome in 1 day, I think we should slowly increase, this works best for all market things.

• cekickafa : its been 3 years from mainnet. its a long time for a cryptocurrency. better show a little trust

• anynomous : The point is that we want at least some fixed amount in Grin, its like saying, if you do not believe at all in the project, do not apply for funding. We want some stake at least.

• vegycslol : We should accept dev help from people who don't believe in grin but would help it for money imo

• joltz : I think you just want to find the sweet spot where they will want to hold/use the currency to increase the value instead of just insta-sell for btc/usd etc.

• vegycslol : Mainnet doesn't matter, you need to provide liquidity otherwise it's pointless to pay big amounts in grin and currently we don't have it

• mcmmike : Can you do a short writeup @anynomous and we have 2 or 3 threads on the forum where we can move our discussion? Once we have a better understanding on what the community wants we can vote on it and make it a reuqirement for payment .

• anynomous : Yes we can, just one question, why 2 or 3 threads, I think it could be in 1 thread right?

• mcmmike : we would split the percentages to different threads otherwise how can we disguingish between who wanted what?

• anynomous : It is also important to discuss this on the forum, we need also input from developers themselves, I wonder what they think is acceptable/the sweet spot.

  @mcmmike Also on the forum I will provide the different options to vote on, then the discussion below.

  Also to clarify, even if we start with e.g. 10%, this is not fixed, it is just a start, this discussion will be continued. For now lets move to the forum.

• mcmmike : ok anything else we can disuss on the forum about this

• anynomous : Funding request should be at least paid XX% in Grin, we need your opinion!

Please continue the discussion here and give your vote: https://forum.grin.mw/t/funding-request-should-be-at-least-paid-xx-in-grin-we-need-your-opinion/9181/6

• mcmmike : We have not yet received all votes from all CC members on this topic @anynomous please take over on this topic.

• anynomous : We contacted Nhash to get an good offer for buying the mining equipment, we got the following deal:

   > "Glad to know we can cooperate with the Grin community.
    As you required 12 units G1 mini and 1 unit G1, here we quote below:
    G1 mini 1.2Gps ±10%： $799/unit
    G1 36Gps±10%：$23,999/unit
    Shipping cost to Germany by UPS, 5~8 working days, $547.
    Total $34,134
  
    This is the best price we can offer for you and Grin community members.
    Please arrange the miners payment and shipping cost to separate address:
    Paying $33587 to ...
  

  So in summary, we can buy 1 G1 miner and 12 G1 Mini miners for $34,134 excluding shipping costs. Lets vote in whether we think this deal should get a go ahaed

  Please vote with thumbs up or down.

( defistaker, anynomous, mcmmike, cekickafa, hendi, dtavarez voted with thumbs up)

(Proposed procedure will be voted.) https://github.com/grincc/security/issues/1#issuecomment-899605888

• mcmmike : had a conversation with John from the OC and we agreed on the following schemata in order to verify our keys. We need to vote on this in order to fully agree.

• joltz : Unfortunately to produce the proofs we want it is less straightforward than it initially appears. Bitcoin implementations want you to sign messages with an "address" instead of a "public key". This means for p2wsh multisigs like we are using, there is no straightforward way to produce a signature from all required keys from the various private key setups (hardware wallets etc). Instead a compromise is to use the procedure linked above for spends. This provides the same guarantees: cryptographic proofs that show that all members have access to their private key material. The main difference is that it takes longer to prove accessibility/spendability of all keys (a full proof is obtained every other quarter instead of every quarter). However, if there are regular outgoing funding tx's, by following the above the proofs can actually happen more frequently than quarterly because they are "built in" to each funding tx. Let me know if you have any questions on the above! Ideally both CC and OC will implement the same strategy here

• mcmmike : thank you @* joltz

  Can we please vote on signing as shown in the issue:

  Signing transaction over a period of a year:

  • Q1: Key1, Key2,Key3,Key4
  • Q2: Key5,Key6,Key{1..4},Key{1..4}
  • Q3: Key1, Key2,Key3,Key4
  • Q4: Key5,Key6,Key{1..4},Key{1..4}

  Please send thumb up and down for your vote.

(defistaker, anynomous, hendi, mcmmike, cekickafa, dtavarez, Mac voted in favor with thumbs up, total 7/7 )

• mcmmike : mac also votes

• anynomous : That means we have a go ahead

• mcmmike : ok, yes we will proceed as such I will add this to the security repository and need some approvals by the CC on github

• mcmmike : ok last point even if its not on the agenda, I am helping together with a few members KuCoin to get GRIN running again

  we using a seperat Telegram group, but we stuck at the moment as twe need a new node version to be compiled.

• anynomous : Great work!

• mcmmike : we could need some support from the OC to get the compilation done please

  we doing our best to get GRIN up and running again on KuCoin

• joltz : will ping to see who is available

• mcmmike : thank you @* joltz

• joltz : is there a link to the issue/PR I can share?

• mcmmike : keybase://chat/grincoin#dev/22015

• dtavarez : yes, https://github.com/mimblewimble/grin/issues/3641

  the fix is there, but we need to generate a binary again becasue the fix was done after the latest build

  commit a9f1dd7bcd9bb204de599cdefa92b81cd6e36ce3 is bumping to version 5.2.0-alpha.1 from 5.1.0

  if a build is trigered probably we want to revert that commit before and the push it again

• mcmmike : ok good, thank you all for your support and this was a really quick meeting. Please @defistaker create a new issue on the agenda repository for the next meeting, taking into account the new time-schedule

• mo5itoo : can we talk quickly about tradeogre issues too ?

• mcmmike : what is the TO problem? Lets add this to the agenda for next meeting and solve this after the meeting

• mo5itoo : ok @mcmmike

• mcmmike : ok, now officially meeting is over

Meeting adjourned