CB-3Q23-03.1: Bitcoin on Stacks | Improvements

[will-corcoran]

Discussed in #912

^{Originally posted by will-at-stacks May 8, 2023}
PLEASE NOTE: This RFP is still in development and will be formally published on 5.12.23. Applications will be open until 6.20.23. Applicants will apply by following the link in this document once it is formally published as an Issue.

Introduction:

We are excited to announce our latest batch of Critical Bounties (RFP-style grants)! With a total funding up for grabs of 12 BTC and 250k STX, we are seeking talented individuals to help us drive the sBTC, Bitcoin on Stacks, Stacks, and Clarity forward. Applications will be open from 5.12.23 to 6.20.23. Don't miss this chance to be a part of the future of Bitcoin L2 and Stacks!

Critical Bounty Mission Statement:

Join us in our mission to bridge Bitcoin and Stacks through sBTC! We're seeking open-source proposals that drive high-impact contributions to advance the activation of L1 Bitcoin-based assets on the L2 Stacks layer. Whether it's improving sBTC at the infrastructure or application level or enhancing developer experience, we're excited to hear your ideas. Each application submitted to this open-ended Bitcoin on Stacks Improvements RFP will be evaluated on the merits of its mission and the needs of the ecosystem at the time of review.

Project Idea (feel free to suggest ideas not on this list):

• sBTC Privacy: Protocol for improving sBTC transaction privacy
• Author or improve Bitcoin libraries & services used by Stacks devs, suchas btckit & btc-signer (add dlcs)
• Tooling required for sOrds (Ordinals on sBTC)
• Create (or convert existing) tooling for Bitcoin on Stacks into Replit extensions
• Indistinguishability Obfuscation R&D; i.e.: explore ways to safeguard a sBTC threshold wallet with no human signers
• BNS-sBTC-related R&D
• Lightning-Stacks-related R&D
• Ordinal, BRC-20, etc on Stacks R&D

Required Knowledge / Skills:

• Varies based on the specifics of each proposal, but a strong understanding of Bitcoin and Stacks will be required.

Critical Bounty Fee:

• Maximum Fee: Varies based on the specifics of each proposal. Funds for this RFP will be awarded in BTC.

APPLICATIONS ARE NOW CLOSED

CHECK BACK FOR MORE CRITICAL BOUNTIES IN LATE-AUGUST

[stacks-foundation]

👋 @will-at-stacks


Thanks for your application! We will do a pre-review and let you know if we have any immediate questions. In the mean time please refer to our review schedule here for a detailed timeline and response dates.


Best,
Will

[ddimaria95]

Linking the StackScreener project proposal here for visibility to community members:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSGWAX-etvOvTqXNmYnqsTkAMsBhEXxPgj-NHh-xrHvinHDk7W9TqiBdh8DjnBNWxhRwDPHK2Z2g43y/pub

If anyone has any thoughts, questions or suggestions on the future of StackScreener, here would be an appropriate place to make those. I'd also like to note that I feel that while StackScreener applied for the Bitcoin on Stacks grant, it really does apply to both this category and the Stacks/Clarity grant. We plan on screening and providing data for STX tokens as well as BRC20s, Ordinals, and anything in the future to come from both spaces.

We believe that Stacks is the layer 2 that will allow innovations on Bitcoin to scale. Great example of this is the creator of BRC20s, domodata, working with Alex Labs for an onchain indexer for BRC20s using Stacks smart contract functionality.

Anyways, have a glance at the proposal and look forward to continuing to build out a much needed tool for the community. Thanks!

[dantrevino]

+1 to @ddimaria95 proposal.

A. Thanks for providing the actual proposal. Community visibility is helpful and unfortunately missing with this new process.
B. I'm most interested in the developer api, and obviously any work that would go into making that useful (ie more/current data)

[igorsyl]

@dantrevino Curious, what is missing regarding community visibility?

[setzeus]

Submitting for this track & officially revealing what we've been cooking up internally :)

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cuJbv_iCiXn80ByIcW7osLt346DDXqEKtbVhsxEN1sA/edit?usp=sharing

[dantrevino]

@igorsyl ...

After @will-at-stacks refuted my complaint yesterday, I looked again and I do see a link to existing work post-approval. I will say, though that none of the applications seem to be public before approval. Its like the whole grant thing is now behind a wall. Submissions are via a form. The community never sees those afaict. Then a grant committee of 4 (apparently) ... approves or disapproves without any community feedback. Then, and only then, are the approved grantees asked to provide their proposal. Followed by a single "here's where to find gitbook" link buried in the comments (usually).

I'm not even sure my characterization of the process is correct because, honestly, I cant find anything about how its supposed to happen or, ideally, why its happening that way. Maybe I missed a memo. Maybe I missed a big community share... doesnt feel like it though.

I think this process can be better communicated and more open. But I'd be happy to learn that I'm just ignorant about whats going on.

[will-corcoran]

@dantrevino

Blog post for March. Plus:

"none of the applications seem to be public before approval"
Yes, this is correct. Yesterday, I spoked about 'direct application' grants and Critical Bounties. We are only focused on offering Critical Bounties at this time. Since CBs are RFP-style grants and people are often competing to be awarded the same scope of work its only natural that the applications are kept private until they are awarded so that applicants are assured they aren't being undercut in terms of fee by another applicant.

"Its like the whole grant thing is now behind a wall. Submissions are via a form. The community never sees those afaict."
Again, these are RFP-style grants that are scoped by the same core contributors that then review the applications. Additionally, I have surveyed prob 50 other grant programs and have yet to find another program that operates with the level of transparency we do. Can things be more transparent - yes, I suppose that is aways the case. Does complete transparency equal the best outcome possible? Jury is out on that. I've had the opportunity to review 400+ applications under a variety of circumstances. When I started the grant review committee was a weekly Zoom call with 4 people. Last year, we had a Grant Review Committee of 21 reviewers. Now we have RFP-style grants that are more competitive. Last year we had over $12 MILLION in funding applied for across 300 application. We awarded grants to 30% of the applicants to the tune of +$4 MILLION. Did we get every review right all of the time? No, but we keep striving to be good stewards of the treasury.

Then a grant committee of 4 (apparently) ... approves or disapproves without any community feedback. Then, and only then, are the approved grantees asked to provide their proposal. Followed by a single "here's where to find gitbook" link buried in the comments (usually).
See above. Plus:
I find that the "things are too centralized" and "things aren't coordinated enough" flavor of critiques often come hand in hand. I'll never get it right. No one will ever get it right.
I don't know what to tell you, other than people that are awarded grants are autonomous, self-sovereign human beings that are held to an expectation of providing regular updates, but at the end of the day the only leverage I have is to withhold a milestone payment. That doesn't solve the problem at scale - just for that one time. If you need an update - ask for it. If they don't provide it - ask again.

"I think this process can be better communicated and more open. But I'd be happy to learn that I'm just ignorant about whats going on."
Yes, I agree. That is what the Twitter Spaces yesterday was intended to kick off. I sincerely hope you engage on that front. I have a favorite saying: "Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions." Now is an excellent time for you to have your voice heard and actualize the changes you want to see.

Best,
Will

[dantrevino]

Excellent @will-at-stacks. Thank you.

The only thing I'll agree to disagree with you on is "Don't bring me problems, bring me solutions". I'm not getting paid to be the Grant Administrator. So i'll 100% continue to offer my feedback, but solutions, like the community grant process outlined yesterday, will have to come from y'all.

[will-corcoran]

@dantrevino

Sounds good! I guess what I meant by that - if if Grants hopes to decentralize - people will need to take ownership and not think of it as salaried vs. no salaried. The goal is to have shades of grey. Not just a binary.

[Hero-Gamer]

Appreciate all the convo above and feedback from Dan.
Only thought I'd like to comment is RE: Transparency.

• I'd love to imagine the new community run grants pilot program will be "the other extreme" of transparency, fully at every stage.
• At the same time, I agree with Will's comment "Does complete transparency equal the best outcome possible?" - I have NO IDEA right now! I definitely cannot say yes. Because conceptually sounds good, but always different to actual result, it is still possible full transparency may not be the most effective or efficient way of operating. I like to go with hard evidences until I offer a take on that question.
• Perhaps think of the pilot program as a "testnet" environment but LIVE working (like the sBTC Alpha?!), let's put it out live, test it quickly, see if anything we can learn from the other extreme of transparency.

[will-corcoran]

UPDATE ON CRITICAL BOUNTY SELECTION:

Please note that the applications are in review. We are first, prioritizing the selection of the sBTC Testing Team. Once that selection has been made we will begin final reviews for all other Critical Bounties. Our goal is to announce the selected critical bounty recipients the week of July 10th.

Best,
Will

( cc: @jennymith @igorsyl )

[will-corcoran]

Hi All -

We are excited to announce FOUR recipients of the Bitcoin on Stacks critical bounty!

Congrats to :
@radicleart @proiacm @sosaucily @setzeus

If you could like to review all of the applications go here.

Thanks to all that applied!

Best,
Will

[proiacm]

Thank you @will-at-stacks!

[radicleart]

Thanks @will-at-stacks started sprint planning using trello