Proposal: Code Under Development + Status Progress Bar - Page on Gov

Expected on Snapshot August 7th, 2022

If this proposal passes, a page will be created within bancor gov. that will give a clear outline of all the current undertakings of bancors paid contributors

Note: this is only meant to display information specific to the contributors whom are on the payroll of the foundation. If there are contributors outside the payroll and are working in good faith of the protocol, then I am making it clear that the DAO appreciates the work being done and is grateful. Furthermore the dao appreciates and is grateful for the hard work being done by the core contributors. This proposal simply adds an additional layer of clarity so that the dao can ensure that tasks of importance are being prioritized

FOR: A vote for will mean to have this page created
AGAINST: A vote against will mean to not have this page created


  • create a page on bancor gov which shows;
  1. A list of all of bancors contributors whom are on payroll
  2. A detailed list of everything that each contributor is currently in the midst of coding
  3. A status & progress bar for each of the current undertakings of each task
  4. An expected completion date for each task


It is crucial for the DAO to be well informed of the tasks being performed on Bancor by the contributors so that we, the DAO, can ensure that the actions being taken place are in the benefit of the DAO.

Whilst the foundation may seek to promote & develop Bancor while caring for ITS well being and longevity, this point of view will not always be aligned with the DAOs current members. As we have seen no actions taken place by the foundation since the recent events occurred; no new contributor hires to help alleviate the current problems, no mention of any financial aid to LPs, not even the simple gesture of a written post from the foundation to its community acknowledging the issues and letting the DAO and its community know whether or not they and their actions are aligned with the DAO & its members well being. ( possibly because they arent ? )

Clarity and a well informed DAO will put the DAO in a better place to make better informed decisions regarding the protocol.

Due to the fact that Bancor

  1. has no formal team
  2. the foundations goals are not always directly in line with the DAO
  3. the contributors are paid by the foundation and therefor have some sense of responsibility to the foundation
  4. Bancor has no leadership, and because of this, actions of the contributors can easily fall astray from tasks which require the immediate attention and focus from its contributors.

It is the DAOs responsibility to ensure that the actions currently taking place by the contributors are in the benefit of the DAO and its current members. The only way to ensure that the goals, actions and time spent from the contributors are aligned with the DAO is by monitoring and evaluating the actions of the contributors.

This page, after its creation, can be updated from an administrative / community staff and is not intended to take development time away from the contributors.

Negative Criticisms

Thus far a critiques have been raised

  1. This will consume developers valuable time
  2. This will cause the contributors to feel that the dao does not trust them
  3. This will grant the dao the rights to micromanage the contributors
  4. This will cause confusion, disagreements etc between the DAO on what is and what is not important or what does or what does not require immediate attention etc.
  5. This can put the protocol at risk by displaying the given names of the contributors whom are being paid by the protocol

In Reality

  1. The task of updating this page can be performed by a community manager. After the initial set up, it will not require a developer to constantly update it
  2. The DAO and its members have put their trust and good faith in the contributors. This proposal simply will provide the DAO with information and clarity so that the DAO can ensure that work being performed is in the best interests of the DAO. Being privy to such information should not be construed as mistrust. Information does not equal mistrust.
  3. This will not grant the DAO additional powers of micromanaging the contributors. With the given information, the DAO can have discussions on the actions of the contributors, but the contributors are still able to work on what they choose to freely. If the DAO however votes on particular issues, and if the vote passes, then this may dictate how, where and what issues the contributors time is spent. It is important to note that if this vote succeeds, then it is in the benefit of the majority of the DAO and its members, therefor it is likely that it is also in benefit of the protocol.
  4. As I touched on above, with or without this page, there will always be disagreements and confusion within the DAO and its members. The addition of the page does not create this. It may bring to light on additional new issues to have disagreements on, however, no action needs to happen from the contributors unless a successful vote happens, and in which case, this successful vote will be in benefit to the DAO, its members, and likely the protocol.
  5. The public names of the contributors are already on display on github. Giving the names of the salary contributors does not put the protocol at any additional risk than what the protocol is already currently exposed to.
Should this task + progress page be created?
  • Yes
  • No

0 voters


Yes please. Anything to give normal people some sense of whats going on and why they should take the risk staying.

Just to add, there is a development update that goes out weekly and this was the last one:

6. Weekly Dev Update


  • Updated the v2.1 Vortex to make the BNT → vBNT trades using v3
  • Added support for triggering trading liquidity updates
  • Completed open rewards changes — simplification and support for auto-compounding rewards for DAO treasury support
  • Clearing open tasks to increase capacity for recovery tasks


  • Update the infrastructure to reduce dependency on the backend API
  • Improve UX to align with the current protocol status
  • Text updates to make the app state clearer to users


  • Paraswap (WIP)
  • (WIP)
1 Like

I do appreciate the dev updates, and it shows what changed have recently been done, but from the looks of it

clearing open tasks to increase capacity for recovery tasks = worked on unimportant things to get out of the way with so that we can now focus on important things

means that the developers did not work on anything that will help improve our current situation. and now that they have time to work on it… what exactly are they doing to improve the situation?

this is why we need this page.

if to this date, over 1 month after this whole fiasco happened, there is nothing, 0, improvements, implementations… or at least concepts that have been completely thought out and ready for implementation… then I do not think there would be a single person in the DAO that would feel satisfied with how the team spent the last 4-5 weeks.

I am hoping to hear more comments from the community on this matter.

1 Like

All code changes are done on github which is public for anyone to see (or contribute to).

The changes that were made in the past week are not “unimportant” - most of them were based on feedback from the v3 security audits and bug fixes, I’m pretty sure we can agree that nobody wants a new security issue just because everyone is focused on the recovery.
Other changes that were made were actually as a result of DAO votes like vortex changes and the ability for the DAO to update the trading liquidity.

I’m for a high level roadmap but I’m not in favor of bringing items to discussions prematurely - I think every community member that has an idea about a feature that will help with the recovery, should work on it and evaluate it first, before posting it for discussion. Otherwise -

  • If the person who suggests a feature realizes it’s actually impractical/negative ROI, it would be a waste of (collective) time to discuss it
  • Premature discussions = a huge overhead that will only delay features from being implemented
    Discussions should begin after a feature passed initial assessment by the person that’s promoting it.

There are currently many community members with some very good ideas that are assessing their suggestions and others are already being discussed.
I think the current process is reasonable, all things considered.


I agree with nearly all of the points that you made. It’s great that changes were made based off the v3 security audits, but as it currently stands, bancor is going through an issue right now! not theoretical problems based off the audits. I cannot say that the work done thus far from the team, specifically targeting solutions for our current predicament, deserve a pat on the back and told a job well done. If we are still in the exact same position as we were over a month ago when ILP was turned off, how can you say that the current process is reasonable?

If you feel that the team has reacted to the current situation as best they could have so far, during the past 30+ days, then I would truly like to know what I overlooked and I will change my views on the matter.

Ideas are thrown around left, right, and center by the community, and most, probably are impractical, once the math has been broken down. Hence why if all the developers on payroll came up with their own solutions and brought those solutions to the community, then perhaps we all might come to agreements faster and get them implemented asap.

As you are a team member, I know that you must feel that it wouldnt be nice for the DAO to keep tabs on you and the rest of the team. But it is in the best interests of the DAO to keep tabs on what exactly the developers are currently doing to rectify this current situation

Agree with @yudi here. I’ve been regularly following the Github and I came away with the exact opposite reaction, I thought significant progress has been made in a very short time. The path to solid solutions look exactly like this, good foundations must come first. All efforts to push devs and let the macro situation dictate the workflow raises the risk of a structural mistake; so the thread here feels counterproductive.


if your house catches on fire and youre trapped inside… do you want the firefights to help get you out first, or put out the flame first ?

I generally agree with you, and I think we should do something like that at some point.
But in emergency situations, it can do nothing but add more overhead.
In order to prioritize the tasks, the DAO will also need to be educated on every small bug the protocol has, every communication with security audit, every integration and know every detail about each of these things. Do you really think now is the time?

1 Like

If no tasks have yet been done which DIRECTLY is meant to combat the current problems we are facing, then I would say, yes, absolutely.

If nothing concrete has been nailed out. If no direct actions have been taken place specific to the problem we are facing since ILP was removed, then I stand to argue that the development team needs proper management, direction and forward guidance. I am not trying to bad mouth. I’m simply stating the fact that bancor encountered this huge problem, and the ones in charge applied more of their focus to writing code that solves theoretical problems from an audit rather than an actual problem that was striking them directly in the face. I understand that the DAO makes the decisions, I understand that ideas and code takes time. But I cannot give an excuse to the team after such a lengthy period of time.

A simple admin can take care of this role. It should not require a developer to constantly update this task and progress page. An admin can keep tabs on every developer and constant add updates.

Furthermore, the death spiral which we faced was a known problem and was previously discussed. The poster boy brain child of ILP should have then and there devised a strategy to combat this death spiral should it have ever occurred. There was no such plan devised, and in any other business environment, this person probably would not only have been fired, but charges of negligence could have been placed against them.

So it is only right that the DAO now keep tabs on the gatekeepers to help ensure that they are being productive where they need to be, and so that the DAO can give advice, critique and acknowledge the hard work that the team is putting forth.

Once again, this is entirely in the benefit for the DAO. Other than this being a pain in the butt for the developers, I have yet to hear any real negative feedback why this is not good for the DAO.

I don’t want to start an argument about responsibility but I’ll only say I totally disagree.

But back to the issue at hand, if you think it’s a good idea for the DAO to micromanage the different tasks - by all means. I think it will delay the recovery by a considerable amount of time but the DAO decides. I guess the next step is to create a proposal.

The DAO does not need to micro manage. The DAO should simply be given the knowledge of those on payroll, what tasks are being worked on and the progress.

This page would not give the rights to the DAO to control the development team. Its simply just information so that we can keep tabs

In practice I anticipate it will become micromanagement since everyone has something to say with minimal knowledge of the details or the implications.
I sense chaos but we’ll see.

1 Like

Even in your suboptimal analogy, you’re ironically arguing with one of the firefighters during a critical time.

1 Like

Not to mention that the bottleneck right now isn’t actually development yet, it’s product.

1 Like

you understood my point. no need to be a pompous prick about it.

Yudi said the problem isnt development, they’re waiting for the DAO to create the product… unless in the back end Mark and friends are in the midst of coming up with their own ideas that theyre ready to present to the DAO that will solve our problems. If not then… @yudi , you’re probably not too busy at this very moment working specifically on the solution to our problem … are you ?

Both Mark and myself are part of this community and we’re discussing different ideas all the time.
There are also some good ideas from other community members that are being discussed right now.
Everyone wants to go with the solution with the highest ROI and each community member that has an idea needs to assess it and verify it before opening up the discussion with the rest of the community.

In any case, you can assume I personally don’t have much life now outside Bancor and that I won’t be able to rest until the protocol recovers.

I thought we were friends Jindo, but after that comment we’re definitely not going to go see Top Gun today.

1 Like

i guess we’ll have to post-pone until we kiss and make up … okay enough of this . these comments should get removed. back to bancor

1 Like

Jen recently made clear on telegram that bancor has no team. it has contributors.

these contributors are not paid by the dao, but are on the payroll of the foundation. during this whole fiasco, we have seen no action from the foundation. no additional aid, no new hires for help during this period of time, not even a statement

I am suggesting that the contributors albiet must have good intentions for the DAO, community and bancor as a whole, also have some sort of responsibility to the foundation.

bancors recent events have made it clear that the foundation and the DAO do not always have their goals directly aligned. but the contributors are responsible for carrying out the voted on and agreed upon requests from the DAO.

therefor it is important that the DAO is privy to what is requested from this thread, and even more crucial during periods of stress.

the longevity of bancor and its foundation are not necessarily aligned with the wellbeing of the DAO and its members today. So it is the responsibility of the current members of the DAO to help ensure that actions being taken today are in the benefit of todays DAO members.

please give more feedback. if there is any negative criticism, Id like to know why the DAO shouldnt be privy to the current actions and undertakings of the contributors