I will first respond to the following initial paragraph of your response, and respond to the some other replies later in separate posts (time permitting).
@ltfschoen Thank you for your interest in this proposal and taking the time to write your questions - below you will find my answer to each of them. For context; the majority of your questions are based on the misconception that unclaimed CFG rewards from the crowdloan will be transferred to the treasury. That is not the case, nor is it stated anywhere in this proposal. If this proposal passes, claiming will be disabled and hence no further tokens will be minted. So these unclaimed rewards do not exist anywhere right now.
In response to your statement that “the majority of …” my “… questions are based on the misconception that unclaimed CFG rewards from the crowdloan will be transferred to the treasury”, I wish to reply that no misconception occurred, your proposal clearly doesn’t mention transferring tokens to the Centrifuge Treasury.
The reason why I mention the option of transferring (after minting) the unclaimed rewards to the Centrifuge Treasury at all, is because I believe that proposals like this change (that affect key stakeholders that have become eligible for rewards from contributing financially to the project), should include an optioneering section and an impact assessment section.
The optioneering section would consider in-depth various alternatives and options for this investment proposal to identify and adequately justify the best or preferred option to present to decision makers.
The impact assessment would follow risk control procedures (identifies risk, and calculates impact, probability, and severity).
The only question that appears to incorrectly imply that your proposal will send the unclaimed crowdloan contributions to the Centrifuge Treasury (which it clearly doesn’t state) is question “2.13.4 Why aren’t Centrifuge crowdloan contributors’ reward payments in CFG tokens that aren’t claimed stored in the unclaimed crowdloan reward account instead of being sent to the Centrifuge Treasury?”. That question should have been question number 2.3.1.x (nested under 2.3.1 and based on the answer to that question).
My only questions that relate to transferring unclaimed rewards to the Centrifuge Treasury was questions 2.3.1, 22.214.171.124, 2.3.3, 2.9.3, and 2.12.
Question 2.3.1 specifically asked whether that would occur, stating “2.3.1 Are you going to forward the unclaimed rewards to the Centrifuge Treasury …”.
Question 126.96.36.199 specifically asked “188.8.131.52 If you transfer their CFG tokens to the Centrifuge Treasury …”.
Question 2.3.3 should have been question number 2.3.1.x (nested under 2.3.1 and based on the answer to that question), as it was only relevant if you answered in the affirmative that you were going to forward the unclaimed rewards to the Centrifuge Treasury.
Question 2.9.3 only mentioned a hypothetical scenario of it occurring.
Question 2.12 asks “2.12 Is this proposal just copying the approach to proposals taken by Composable Finance …”. It is a question, and it doesn’t include a statement saying that i believe that this proposal is the same as their proposal. Their proposal was to both discontinue allowing crowdloan contributors to claim their crowdloan rewards (similar to this proposal) and also transfer the unclaimed tokens to the treasury. Since their proposal various community members have felt the need to create the following proposals to extend the claim period:
I therefore don’t think it’s fair to label the majority of my questions as being based on a misconception.
Also, you are asking some questions that are directly related to Polkadot (e.g. the Fellowship and their payment) and not Centrifuge (or this proposal); for these questions, please inquire with Polkadot.
I realise some of the questions I asked are directly related to Polkadot, but I included them to emphasise that I believe it is grossly unfair to, on the one hand, request funding from contributors (at their opportunity cost) in exchange for a reward, without specifying beforehand that it will ever be necessary for them to claim (mint) those rewards within a specified timeframe or else forfeit their unclaimed rewards (“unclaimed money”).
For example, in Australia, they handle “unclaimed money” as described here, where it is only considered “unclaimed money” after 7 years if the account is inactive, and “unclaimed money” is then transferred to a consolidated revenue fund, which would be similar to transferring “unclaimed money” to the Centrifuge Treasury.
They even maintain and publish a database of “unclaimed money” records to helps people find and claim their lost money so as they say, the “rightful owner can claim their money at any time – there is no time limit.”.
They even allow interest to be payable to the claimant on the “unclaimed money” that they hold, where the interest rate is based on the percentage change in CPI (Consumer Price Index) each financial year.
In your response to my question 1.1.1, you mention that you believe it is “reasonable to propose to discontinue the claiming after the first leasing period has expired and after giving contributors a notice to claim their rewards beforehand. If the token holders disagree with this approach, they are free to vote no to this proposal.” and in your response to my question 1.1 you say that doing so would beneficially impact the tokenomics of the Protocol because their “unclaimed rewards are not going to be minted”.
In response to your response to my question 2.11, the reason I raised that question is because I personally know people who I referred me to the Centrifuge crowdloan (recorded in a log book), and I also personally know people who I referred to the Centrifuge crowdloan (also recorded in a log book). It is not always possible to find the time to contact, follow-up, and even hear back from even people you know personally within the period of time that you want to or need to.
In response to your response to my question 2.8, you say there “is no such” Centrifuge crowdloan Terms and Conditions, that “that explicitely states the period within which Centrifuge crowdloan contributors were required to claim their CFG tokens prior to their ability to claim their CFG tokens was to be suspended”.
I believe that the Centrifuge crowdloan contributors should have been more adequately notified by means of a Centrifuge crowdloan Terms and Conditions document or similar equivalent that at a random time in the future after the distribution of their CFG token rewards that a proposal could be generated that would cause them to have to forfeit those rewards within a 2-3 month period if that proposal were to pass. If that had occurred then I believe less Centrifuge crowdloan contributors would be susceptible to having to unknowingly have to forfeit their rightful claim to the rewards due to a proposal like this passing, and may have even chosen not to contribute to the Centrifuge crowdloan at all, which could have jeopardised Centrifuge obtaining a parachain slot for the lease period.
Some additional questions:
3.1 Why is it a reasonable for Centrifuge to create a proposal that has the purpose of causing Centrifuge crowdloan contributors to have to forfeit their “unclaimed money” from their unclaimed crowdloan rewards within a period of less than 3 months from the date this RFC was created (based on your response to my question 2.3.2) if there isn’t an adequate amount of Centrifuge governance voters aware of the proposal and with sufficient CFG tokens to oppose it within that period?
Note: In response to your response to my question 2.10, I personally know people who were “so affected by covid-19 that they weren’t able to go to a website, press a button and type a password”, because they actually died due to side effects that were triggered by covid-19 preventatives, in fact that happened to a close family member of mine who started experiencing the symptoms from the side effects in 2022 and sadly died late last year.
3.1.1 What if the unthinkable occurred and one of the Centrifuge crowdloan contributors was “so affected by covid-19 that they weren’t able to go to a website, press a button and type a password” because they died before this proposal was created, and their next of kin only gained access to their estate (including the “unclaimed money” of their Centrifuge crowdloan rewards) over 12 months later due to it being complex dealing with their Will and estate? If this proposal were to pass and they were forced to forfeit their “unclaimed money” before their next of kin gained access to the private keys from their estate, would Centrifuge entertain making an exception and restore the ability for their next of kin to claim their “unclaimed money”?
3.1.2 Why wouldn’t it be more reasonable to provide a longer voting period than only 30 days?
3.1.3 Why wouldn’t it be more reasonable to provide a longer RFC period than only 7 days for this proposal?
3.2 Why wouldn’t it be appropriate to add an optioneering section to this proposal and extend the RFC period accordingly, where that section would consider in-depth various alternatives and options for this investment proposal to identify and adequately justify the best or preferred option to present to decision makers.
3.3 Why wouldn’t it be appropriate to add an impact assessment section to this proposal and extend the RFC period accordingly, where that section would follow risk control procedures (identifies risk, and calculates impact, probability, and severity).
3.4 Would it possible to get a suitable Centrifuge team member to respond to my question 2.5.2 (e.g. a Centrifuge team member that was involved in estimating and forecasting of the Centrifuge engineering team work breakdown structure and contingency plan for the parachain lease period given that the Centrifuge crowdloan contributors provided funding towards enabling them to have that parachain lease where they could execute the development and implementation of new features, and support those Centrifuge crowdloan contributors by fixing quote “unexpected bugs, and errors, including errors in claiming crowdloan rewards” where quote “engineers were forced to fix and be distracted from the development and implementation of new features”. Note that those quotes are from the Background section of your proposal.
3.5 In the Background section of your proposal, it states that the CFG protocol carried out “significant updates not only to the CFG network through Runtime Upgrades, but also carried out significant Polkadot updates, which entailed changes and sometimes unexpected bugs, and errors, including errors in claiming crowdloan rewards.”. Was it appropriate to fund these unexpected requirements through a Centrifuge lease period contingency plan funded or similar equivalent by the Centrifuge Treasury even if it negatively impacted Centrifuge Tokenomics?