There are two reasons why we fail to predict the future - a failure in boldness - a failure of the imagination

I prefer doing retroactive funding over a developer in residence program. Let people build to scratch their own itch, and let’s reward the ones that make valuable open source contributions. There will be a time and place for this, but I don’t believe it’s yet.

There is certainly risk in this prop, but I believe the use of Juicebox + the sponsorship by @kmacbeth means that the DiR will have sufficient accountability. I would encourage Alex to focus on the projects that will provide the most impact, regardless of the proposed timeline (let's face it, timelines are tough and there is a lot to do here)

useful for purple dao to fund development in the farcaster ecosystem. projects mentioned look useful as well. seems like a good experiment to try out.

lets buidl

Now is the time to experiment. Love the juicebox mechanism. Let’s be patient but also direct with our feedback for @alexpaden.

It's a no for me right now. While I think this is a good idea conceptually, it's something that requires a lot of planning and much more clarity. If we're going to launch a Dev-in-Residence pilot program, shouldn't we be opening it up to the rest of the Farcaster community or at least more folks in Purple who may also want to be an "X-in-Residence"? There are builders beyond developers. Within the FC ecosystem, there are a ton of folks building and not receiving a "salary" of sorts. Seemingly everyone's a builder...so in this role, what are the specific problems to be solved, products to be created, measure of success, and specificity around milestones and delivery. We're here to elevate the FC protocol and community, which means giving other people a chance to also be "X-in-residence." Happy to see another round of this prop that has more clarity and shows what the true value is. It seems like much of the community is already delivering solutions on this "problem," which isn't really a problem given that people are building.

Low risk thanks to use of Juicebox 'rage' quit mechanism. This experiment could open avenues to additional funding sources that support the DAO's mission. LFG

Like the idea; disagree with the funding mechanism. I am concerned with the precedent of funding a solo developer in residence program that becomes a popularity contest. Instead, I think we should encourage projects to apply via regular Prop House rounds. I see this proposal as a symptom of our lack of regular public funding and would prefer to focus our energy & ETH on regular Prop House and retroactive funding rounds.

Alex demonstrated great initiative in crafting the proposal, engaging with feedback, and converting skeptics. He secured a supportive champion and they introduced the Juicebox option to mitigate budget risks. I’m betting on that entrepreneurial spirit and collaboration. I am primarily interested in the Developers segment of this Proposal and feel that if executed effectively, it can significantly contribute to the proliferation of Farcaster.

Alright, alright, I still don't like the proposal due to the lack of small enough scope that can be delivered. So far everything is so ephemeral that I predict no results will come out of this 2 weeks after the start. But hey, let's go bold. I'm going to vote for rage quitting like crazy in case we don't see a working product in 2 weeks and every day during the 2 weeks without us being able to test the thing being built in production will make me want to rage quit even more 😈😈😈 Alex, make sure to deliver, I want this to succeed even though I'm skeptical.

This was the hardest vote I've participated in so far for Purple. I find the 'Against' reasons to be compelling – the deliverables are fuzzy and smaller grants/more developers feels right to me as a principle. However, I am reassured by kmacb.eth's involvement, the implementation of Juicebox, and the option for the DAO to raqequit. I also feel that comparing this Prop to the BotFrens proposal is more appropriate than comparing it to the latest Prop House proposal. The cost is similar and if Ditti can be successfully open sourced and built out to its full feature set, then I feel the expenditure would be well worth it. I encourage @alexpaden to focus on Ditti as much as possible, even if it means foregoing some of the other things mentioned in the prop (Hubble work, docs work, external publications, etc).

First time voter and seems the consensus is love the builders and great ideas, but funding mechanism doesn't seem ideal. I agree with this theme, but want to give these guys a shot...they both seem incredibly determined and want to see FC/WC succeed. Push it hard guys and GL if this passes.

A DIR program seems like a great idea, though is a bit risky given the current treasury size. That said, the rage quit option here is critical and reduces risk on the funding amount. Very excited to try this mechanism out and see what @alexpaden builds for the FC community!

kmacb.eth is determined and organized af

I do wonder if longer term a Dev in Residence makes sense vs funding via regular Prop House rounds, but I think for now the Juicebox ragequit option + highly requested features that'll be worked on sway me towards voting yes. I'm viewing this proposal as building some solid features that make it more accessible for other devs to come in and propose smaller, discrete projects in Prop House rounds.

I think we should do more funding experiments like that. The only suggestion I have for next time: I read that the work outlined in the proposal has been requested by multiple users & developers. Next time, it would be nice to quantify this. I'm not so sure if these features are really more important than other ones.

I do like the ideas proposed in general. However, given that we have a limited treasury at the moment, I think it would be a better idea/mechanism to fund the ideas through regular Prop House and then further follow up on the specific progress made.

I'd prefer to fund many developers and limit scope to a handful of deliverables. With a new prop house soon to open, I'd gladly vote to fund this developer on several of the below objectives.

Tough decision. On one hand, its a big commit, scope is vaguer than we'd like, and risk is high. Maybe smaller retroactive funding is more appropriate for the DAO right now. On the other hand Juicebox lowers the risk and building real tooling is expensive. We should move fast and try different things and iterate. Im with borodutch here: giving the green light, but hair trigger on the rage quit button.

Alex is a talented builder, but this is not the ideal funding mechanism. Purple still has limited treasury and we don't have the luxury to hire full-time engineers, especially when the deliverables are not tightly scoped. To maximize impact of our Treasury, we should always prioritize giving small grants to a number of scoped projects and double down on them only if they deliver and need more capital. That said, I would definitely consider voting for this project if it went through Prop House.

I support the initiative, and the use of juicebox reduces our downside risk.

Alex has given a reasonable amount of details for the work to be done, the work detailed has been requested by multiple users / developers, KMac has offered to oversee output, and the funding mechanism provides reasonable controls for the DAO.

Voting No here as the general feeling of the votes Yes seem to be: “I don’t love this mechanism and the one we are going to set up in the next Prop is better, but let’s try this anyway.” And I agree: I think we aren’t at the stage where taking on an dev-in-residence is ideal. The timeline also makes me feel like the incentives get shifted from building something great and rewarding that, to shipping whatever you can by the deadline.